ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked-

Rural Payments Agency

Greg Mulholland: What progress her Department has made on increasing the efficiency and reliability of the Rural Payments Agency.

James Paice: The agency is implementing the key recommendations from the independent review of the organisation, which was published on 20 July. That involves six priority projects designed to improve customers' experience, establish an efficient operation and make essential preparations for the expected 2013 CAP reforms. Progress is being closely monitored by the RPA oversight board, which I chair.

Greg Mulholland: I thank the Minister for that answer and for attending the sustainability event the other evening. He is well aware of the chaos in the past few years with the single payment scheme system, and the Rural Payments Agency's inability to pay farmers promptly-three alone in the Arthington area of my constituency. Can he please give an assessment of the Rural Payments Agency's ability to carry that out and sort out the mess?

James Paice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As the House knows, there have been some dreadful performances by the RPA in years gone by, and they have not yet all been eliminated. There are still some long-standing cases, which we are trying to work through. We will do that as soon as possible. The board is making arrangements to speed up that process, but I am happy to tell my hon. Friend and the rest of the House that between 1 December, when the payment window started, and 3 December some 83,300 farmers were sent their single farm payment in those first three days-that is 79% of all claimants by volume. It is ahead of last year's achievements, despite all the problems of mapping changes.

Educational Access Programme

Mark Spencer: What recent representations she has received on her Department's funding for the educational access programme.

Richard Benyon: The countryside provides a wonderful learning environment and many organisations do valuable work. My Department will continue to provide funding for educational access through existing agri-environment agreements and through capital payments under new higher level stewardship-HLS-agreements. We are also investigating ways of encouraging the continued provision of educational access, and of addressing the barriers that currently exist.

Mark Spencer: I am very grateful for that answer-I am delighted to hear it. I hope the Minister agrees that my constituents John and Kathy Charles-Jones, who provide access to farms for schoolchildren, do an excellent job of showing the next generation how technology and high levels of animal welfare are playing a big part in food production for the nation.

Richard Benyon: I and my ministerial colleagues are passionate about getting more people in this country to understand how our food gets from field to fork. We are impressed with the work that so many farmers, charities and other organisations do. We are listening to representations that several organisations are making to us. We want to see whether we can expand what goes on in the next phase of HLS schemes, to secure the capital payments and to work out ways we can eliminate some of the barriers to encouraging schools to get on to farms. That can include changing health and safety provision.

Flood Defences

Toby Perkins: Which planned flood defence schemes will not proceed as a result of her Department's planned reduction in expenditure on flood defences.

Karl Turner: Which planned flood defence schemes will not proceed as a result of her Department's planned reduction in expenditure on flood defences.

Caroline Spelman: I am sorry to have to tell the House some sad news. A member of Environment Agency staff was tragically killed yesterday in an accident. I hope the whole House will join me in extending our condolences to his family at this difficult time.
	No schemes have been cancelled as a result of the spending review. Schemes already under construction or under contract will be completed. The Department has launched a consultation on how national funding should be allocated to flood protection schemes in future.

Toby Perkins: May I associate myself with the Secretary of State's remarks a moment ago?
	In Chesterfield in 2007, more than 500 homes were flooded and it was expected, from DEFRA's previous statement, that 145,000 homes across the country would be removed from flood risk by 2011. I understand that the date has now been moved back to 2015. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the reduction in funding for flood defences and the removal of those homes from that earlier expectation flies in the face of the comments that she and her party made in opposition?

Caroline Spelman: With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman is confused about the figures. The Chancellor in fact gave the figure of 145,000 homes as a minimum to be protected during the spending review period-there was never any suggestion that that would happen by 2011.
	I know that the hon. Gentleman has constituents in Chesterfield who are flood-affected. The Environment Agency is currently proceeding with the Avenue coking works remediation project, which is under construction. That should help to provide protection to more than 100 properties in his constituency.

Karl Turner: One key recommendation of the Pitt review was that the Government should increase spending on flood defences by more than inflation year on year. With the Government's 27% cuts to flood defence budgets, have they turned their backs on communities such as mine in Hull East, which is still suffering very badly from the effects of the 2007 floods?

Caroline Spelman: Sir Michael Pitt's review, which was commissioned by the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in government, says that we
	"should not simply assume that the costs of flood risk management will be met centrally...The Government should develop a scheme which allows and encourages local communities to invest in flood risk management"
	schemes. The Government have launched a consultation on payment for outcomes, which will help to provide more flood defences to more communities in future.

Anne McIntosh: May I join the Secretary of State in expressing my condolences to the family of the Environment Agency member of staff who tragically lost his life? I pay tribute to all those who put themselves in harm's way in the event of floods. All who serve on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee would like to record our appreciation of their work.
	I congratulate the Secretary of State on protecting capital expenditure. However, I am concerned to ensure that work will continue on maintaining watercourses and that more work will be done, because that too can protect from floods. May I draw her attention to the fact that the statement of principles may well not be reviewed in 2013? Is she alarmed by that development?

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend is right, as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, to record the Committee's sympathy for the EA staff member.
	DEFRA is expected to spend £2.1 billion over the period of the spending review on flooding-half will go on maintenance, and the other half on capital-so I am confident that we can maintain our flood defences. The Association of British Insurers has warmly welcomed the proposals under the payment for outcomes scheme. That will assist us in renegotiating the statement of principles.

Anne-Marie Morris: I have mentioned the Teignmouth flood defence scheme to the ministerial team on a number of occasions. May we have an update? Will funding be made available for those very important works?

Caroline Spelman: I cannot comment on individual projects ahead of Environment Agency decisions, which it has said it will make after the end of the consultation period on payment for outcomes, which concludes on 16 February. However, my hon. Friend's concern about flooding in her constituency is taken very seriously by all of us.

Jamie Reed: All on this side of the House share the condolences expressed by the Secretary of State for the Environment Agency worker who sadly lost their life.
	I am afraid that the confusion mentioned by the Secretary of State is on the Government's part. DEFRA's 2009 report stated that 145,000 homes would be protected from flooding by March 2011. They have abandoned that aim because of huge cuts to the EA's flood defence budget-27% next year-and instead now hope to protect the same number of homes by 2015, two years after the current agreement with the insurance industry expires. That deliberate choice to delay will cause widespread anxiety and uncertainty for homeowners, businesses and local authorities up and down the country. The Government should now be honest with the country: either they know which flood defence schemes will be abandoned and are aware of the consequences of those cuts, or the cuts are indiscriminate, and the consequences are not understood. Does the Secretary of State know which schemes will be abandoned-yes or no?

Caroline Spelman: I just said in answer to the previous question that the Environment Agency would make decisions on all pending schemes after the close of the consultation on 16 February. As regards the figure that Opposition Members keep quoting, at no point has the figure of 145,000 properties receiving more protection ever been attributed to a time any sooner than 2015, the end of the spending review period. It would be inappropriate to compare spending levels with those of the previous Government, because Labour has failed to say how it would have accommodated the 50% cut in capital that the previous Chancellor had committed it to.

Primates as Pets

Mark Pritchard: If she will bring forward proposals to prohibit the sale of primates as pets.

James Paice: The Government do not encourage the keeping of primates as pets, but a code of practice for the welfare of privately kept non-human primates lays down robust guidance for primate owners and keepers. Failure to follow that code would put the owner at risk of prosecution under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

Mark Pritchard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response, but self-regulation is not working. There are currently 5,000 primates kept as pets in the United Kingdom, many of them in cruel and cramped conditions. It is hard to believe that in the 21st century the party of Wilberforce, who apart from abolishing slavery set up the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the coalition Government are not doing more to end that barbaric and outdated practice.

James Paice: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his determination on this subject and his rightful concern about animal welfare. I must point out that his figure of 5,000 is at the top end of the estimate. We do not know how many there are, but the estimate is between 1,200 and 5,000. If, as he says, many of them are being kept in cruel circumstances, that is not a matter for self-regulation; it is an offence under the Animal Welfare Act. If he or anybody else knows of primates being kept in what they believe to be cruel conditions, the owners are almost certainly in breach of providing the five freedoms, which is an offence.

Caroline Lucas: What discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in the Home Office on measures to ensure that primates that are brought into the UK for sale as pets are not caught in the wild and then diverted and used for research purposes in particular?

James Paice: I am very glad that the hon. Lady has asked me that question, because I asked it of myself yesterday when I was going through the information. In reality, primates are not coming in from the wild. I understand that only one animal in the past decade is believed to have been wild-caught and then brought into this country. Of course, they are all covered by the convention on international trade in endangered species anyway, so there are restrictions in place. Anyone wishing to import a primate into this country has to have a licence, and there are very strict conditions. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady if she would like to know about them.

Broadband

Philip Hollobone: What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on the roll-out of superfast broadband in rural areas.

Richard Benyon: The Secretary of State and I are in regular contact with our ministerial colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on this important matter. As a member of the ministerial group on broadband, I speak regularly with Ministers in those Departments on the key issues, including the rural superfast broadband pilots announced on 21 October and the national broadband strategy "Britain's Superfast Broadband Future", published on 6 December.

Philip Hollobone: The Kettering borough rural forum, which represents residents in all 22 villages in the borough, has contacted me to say that it is unhappy about slow rural broadband speeds, and about Kettering's apparent exclusion from the Government's attempt to tackle the problem and from the 160 locations announced by BT. Will my hon. Friend do all he can to help residents in the rural parts of Kettering borough address the issue?

Richard Benyon: I am very keen to help the constituents of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members, particularly in rural areas, who will benefit massively from the very good sum of money that we have announced-£530 million over this spending review period, increasing to £830 million in the two years after that. That will mean that constituents such as his will have the means not just to improve the quality of their lives but to run businesses and employ people. It will change the environment, and I can assure him that the disappointment of his constituents will soon be addressed as we start rolling out the hubs from which superfast broadband will operate. There is an enormous sum of money for a very ambitious project right across government, and I hope he will notice the difference very soon.

Gregory Campbell: When the Minister is in discussions with providers, will he make representations on behalf of people in rural areas who are complaining to me-and, I am sure, to many other hon. Members-that they keep seeing advertisements indicating significant broadband speeds, but that they can very seldom, if ever, get those speeds? Will he ensure that those companies' advertisements are more accurate?

Richard Benyon: It is important that providers are accurate and that the Government give the lead in ensuring that what people are told is within the realms of reality. The first paragraph of the executive summary of "Britain's Superfast Broadband Future" states:
	"Rural and remote areas of the country should benefit from this infrastructure upgrade at the same time as more populated areas, ensuring that an acceptable level of broadband is delivered to those parts of the country that are currently excluded."
	That is our intention. We intend to carry those providers with us and to deliver for the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others in rural areas.

Dog Control Notices

Angie Bray: What her policy is on issuing dog control notices on private property.

James Paice: As I think my hon. Friend is aware, a proposal to issue dog control notices on private land was included in the dangerous dog consultation, the responses to which we have now published. The Department will respond to the issues raised in the consultation, including wider matters, and will make an announcement about the Government's approach in the new year.

Angie Bray: I thank the Minister for his answer. As he will be aware, the vast majority of those who responded to the consultation expressed opposition to the idea of dog control notices on private land. However, does he agree that we need to find a way of protecting workers, such as postal workers, who have to access private land to carry out their official duties?

James Paice: The answer has to be yes. Of course we feel responsible for public service workers who, to a degree, put themselves at risk from dogs on private property. I cannot prejudge the outcome of the discussions, but I can tell my hon. Friend that what is important is that, since the end of the consultation, the Home Office has announced a review of all antisocial behaviour tools. DEFRA is represented on that working group, which is reviewing all antisocial issues, including the law on dogs.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am sure I am not the only Member who has been bitten by a dog while election campaigning. More importantly, several of my constituents have also been bitten or had their dogs bitten by aggressive dogs. It is clear that dogs are being bred and kept for aggressive purposes. The Government have to get that under control. I suggest to the Minister that we need compulsory licensing, chipping and muzzling of dogs, especially for those known to be aggressive.

James Paice: In my experience, most letter boxes are dangerous enough on their own without the dog behind them. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point entirely-this is a serious issue. I can only repeat that we have been out to consultation, and that the results of that consultation, including the most popular outcomes, are all on the website. The Government are considering the matter now and, as I said, are working with the Home Office, and will make an announcement shortly after Christmas.

Pitt Review

Stephen Gilbert: What progress her Department has made on implementation of the recommendations of the Pitt review on lessons learned from the 2007 floods on levels of flood protection for homes.

Caroline Spelman: Good progress has been made on taking forward the Pitt review recommendations. We are implementing the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and have recently launched a consultation on our national strategy. We published the national flood emergency framework in July, and held a response exercise last month to launch preparations for Exercise Watermark, which will test responses to severe wide-area flooding in March next year.

Stephen Gilbert: I welcome the Secretary of State's reply and was delighted to welcome her to Cornwall so that she could see for herself the recent flooding in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray). One of the lessons we have learned is that the Met Office gave a warning at 10.30 pm of an 80% chance of flooding some six hours before homes were affected and businesses destroyed, but that warning was never passed on to residents. Will she agree to meet me to discuss how we can improve early warnings?

Caroline Spelman: I commend my hon. Friend's work in helping with the ongoing recovery in his constituency. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that it is hard to predict surface water flooding events. In the afternoon of that event, there was only a 20% risk of severe flooding, but by 10.30 pm, when most people are in bed and asleep, it had increased to an 80% risk. One lesson learned from previous flooding incidents is that flood wardens, who can knock on doors and alert, in particular, vulnerable members of the community of the increased risk, can assist a community's resilience.

Lisa Nandy: Simon Douglas, the director of AA Insurance, was quoted in the  Evening Standard as saying that "inadequate spending" on flood defences would
	"leave thousands of homes uninsurable and thus un-mortgageable."
	What help will the Government offer to the thousands of people who will find themselves in that situation?

Caroline Spelman: I refer the hon. Lady to my earlier answer about the warm welcome that the Association of British Insurers has given to the payment for outcomes approach, which, as the ABI chairman made clear, is what Pitt called for, what the ABI has been calling for and what the communities that would like to build greater resilience have also been calling for. I am sure that it will assist those at risk of flooding.

Rural Impact (CSR)

Susan Elan Jones: When she plans to publish a rural impact assessment in respect of the comprehensive spending review.

Caroline Spelman: My Department is the rural champion in government, and we are working with other Departments as they develop their policies following the spending review. Those policies are the responsibility of individual Departments, but DEFRA will work with them to inform a policy statement in the new year, setting out this Government's commitment to rural people, and our approach to promoting and supporting their needs.

Susan Elan Jones: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her answer, but will she home in a little and give me one concrete example of something that DEFRA has done in this area?

Caroline Spelman: DEFRA is continually active in rural-proofing all policy that comes through, and hon. Members who have served in government will know that any Cabinet Minister has that function within their Department through DEFRA. The allocations have not yet been made, so the individual working out of the spending allocations has not been achieved. Let us consider, for example, the impact that DEFRA has had, working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, in achieving a roll-of out superfast broadband in four rural pilot areas.

James Gray: The Department is facing deep cuts-34% in capital and 28%, I think, in current costs-thanks to the appalling profligacy of the previous Government. Does the Secretary of State agree that vital to our countryside is the maintenance of environmental schemes on our farms? We have got to preserve biodiversity and a higher level of environmental conditions in our countryside. I hope that she will be able to reassure the House today that despite the cuts, she will be determined to ensure that that still happens.

Caroline Spelman: I am delighted to be able to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that we anticipate an 80% increase in higher level stewardship schemes, notwithstanding the need for DEFRA to make a contribution to addressing the budget deficit that we inherited from the previous Government.

William Bain: We had expected the publication of the rural impact assessment, but I am afraid that all we got was more weak excuses for the Secretary of State's failure to produce it. If she is having trouble completing her own assessment, will she at least back the findings of last month's report on rural poverty by the Commission for Rural Communities-soon to be scrapped by her Department-which found a lack of proper business support provided to farmers by the Government, poorer access to welfare services in the countryside and a quarter of farming households living below the poverty line, under the first Government since 1926 to try to remove employment protection from agricultural workers? Is not the reality that this is a spending review that slashes investment from rural bus services and social housing, from a Government who are indifferent to the greater inequality that their policies will cause in rural Britain?

Caroline Spelman: Oh dear. I think that constitutes a serious own-goal. The hon. Gentleman should surely be aware that the data that the Commission for Rural Communities was using to make its assessment relate to the period when his party was in government.

James Gray: Get back to jockland.

Hon. Members: Point of order?

Regulatory Burden (Farmers)

Nadhim Zahawi: What recent progress her Department has made on reducing the burden of regulation on farmers.

Alun Cairns: What recent progress her Department has made on reducing the burden of regulation on farmers.

James Paice: One of my first actions was to appoint Richard Macdonald to lead a taskforce to identify ways of reducing the regulatory burden on farmers. The taskforce recently completed a public consultation and will make recommendations to the Government by April next year. I hope that it will bring about a change in culture in implementing our regulations, while at the same time maintaining standards.

Nadhim Zahawi: I thank the Minister for that reply. Farmers in Stratford-on-Avon will welcome the Government's commitment to the industry-led review of regulation. Can he give farmers a time frame for the review, so that they can begin to enjoy a regime that makes it easier for them to produce the food that we eat and care for the countryside that we all cherish?

James Paice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as he and many others are championing the cause of reducing regulation in our rural areas. As I said, the taskforce will report to the Government in early April 2011, and we will then have to see how to take it forward. I cannot be absolutely precise about the time scales, but I would like to take this opportunity to say that this is not about reducing standards, but about reducing the burden of process that has become so prevalent over recent years. We have seen an obsession with process, whereas we need to move much more towards making a judgment on outcomes.

Alun Cairns: DEFRA has had a better regulation agenda for many years, but few, if any, farmers have seen any tangible benefit from the reduction in bureaucracy and red tape. What reassurance can the Minister give that the current review will lead to real benefits for farmers in my constituency and elsewhere?

James Paice: The reassurance I can give is simply this. When we were in opposition, seeing how the previous Government made noises about reducing regulation but never did it convinced me that we had to find a new way. It is not just a question of abolishing regulations-although if they can be abolished, they should be-but about how we implement and enforce them. We have become obsessed with requiring farmers to fill in countless forms, tick loads of boxes and read legions of guidance notes when what really matters is whether the benefit expected from the regulation is achieved. That is what we have to focus on now.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his responses. One big concern of many farmers and landowners over the years has been about red tape, particularly filling in grant forms such as for, among other things, single farm payments. Sometimes they inadvertently fail to tick a box. Can we have some flexibility in the system to ensure that those who qualify for the grants get them and do not lose out because of one small mistake?

James Paice: The hon. Member puts his finger on an extremely important point. I have studied many cases in which farmers have been penalised because, as he said, they omitted to put a figure in a particular box or something like that. Although I have pushed back hard on this front, we are unfortunately constrained very much by the European Commission's Court of Auditors, which is very robust. The disallowances are completely out of proportion. We are working with the Commission, and I have chased up these matters with it to try to get a more proportionate sense of penalty. Hopefully, we will then be able to move forward.

Eilidh Whiteford: One key issue repeatedly raised with me by farmers is cross-compliance and the heavy penalties they face for minor infringements that are of no material consequence whatever. Does the Minister share my view that these penalties are out of all proportion? Will he raise this issue with the Commission as a matter of urgency?

James Paice: Yes, I entirely share the view that these penalties are out of all proportion. I have raised this with the Commission and, more importantly, I and many other Ministers of Agriculture have raised it in the context of the review of the common agricultural policy, which has just commenced. We have firmly expressed to the Commission our view that the next system of CAP support must be simpler, both for individual farmers and for member states to implement.

Andrew George: Having met Richard Macdonald, I am confident that he will undertake a thorough and comprehensive review of the regulatory burden on farmers. When he reports, will my hon. Friend ensure that he receives support from other Government Departments and that that these matters are discussed, if necessary, with the European Union as well?

James Paice: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am in close contact with the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), and, as I said in answer to an earlier question, with the relevant Commissioners across Europe. We are determined that if this industry is to flourish and succeed in the face of increasing world demand for food over the next decades, it must be freed up from unnecessary burdens of regulation.

Tree Planting

John Robertson: What representations she has received on her Department's plans for its project to plant 1 million trees in the next four years.

Caroline Spelman: Thus far, DEFRA has received around 100 e-mails from local authorities and community groups seeking information on or expressing an interest in the big tree plant campaign and a small number of letters from other individuals and organisations.

John Robertson: How much of the money received through privatisation will be spent in the areas of planted trees? How much of it will be spent north of the border, particularly in Glasgow?

Caroline Spelman: With respect, the question is about the big tree plant campaign, a partnership campaign that DEFRA will support with £4 million of public money. The campaign is being run in conjunction with a large number of partners and charities, including Groundwork, Keep Britain Tidy, the Tree Council and the National Forest Company. In every sense, it is a big society campaign.

Peter Soulsby: Two hundred and fifty thousand a year sounds like a lot of trees, but not when compared with the estimated 250 million trees-1,000 times as many-owned by the Forestry Commission in England, much of which the Government are intent on selling off and putting at risk. Will the Secretary of State tell us what she will say to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is actively campaigning against proposals to dispose of a similar proportion of Forestry Commission land in Scotland-a sale of trees that Lib Dems have described as "hugely flawed" and as a "money-making scam"?

Caroline Spelman: Let me say a couple of things in response to that. With the 250,000 trees a year planted as part of the big tree plant campaign, the challenge is that the majority will be in urban areas, particularly in deprived communities, so significant plantings in those areas will benefit those communities. As for the Forestry Commission, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman, rather than reading the newspapers as a guide to Government policy, should adopt the better-informed approach of waiting for the launch of the consultation proposals, which I have discussed closely and successfully with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Common Fisheries Policy

Peter Aldous: What recent discussions her Department has had on reform of the common fisheries policy; and if she will make a statement.

Richard Benyon: As UK fisheries Minister, I have had discussions with a range of organisations and people about common fisheries policy reform, including discussions with the EU Fisheries Commissioner and other member states' Ministers during November's EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council. I have also met representatives of the fishing industry-both the large-scale and under-10-metre sector-MEPs and non-governmental organisations. I plan to have further discussions in pressing our case for radical reform of the CFP.

Peter Aldous: I thank the Minister for that reply, and for meeting a delegation of Lowestoft fishermen last week. I wish him well in his negotiations at next week's Council of Ministers meeting. The future of fishermen and communities all around Britain depends on a successful outcome. Will the Minister confirm that in the review of the CFP, his priorities will include a fair deal for the under-10-metre fleet and the elimination of discards?

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his good wishes for next week's negotiations, and I confirm that the UK is committed to genuine fundamental reform-to achieving healthy fish stocks, a prosperous fishing industry and a healthy marine environment. Part of that agenda is to ensure that we have regionalised decision making and an end to the top-down failure of the current common fisheries policy, and that we give fishermen a stake in the long-term health of fish stocks. That involves those in the under-10-metre sector; I am deeply mindful of the problems that they have faced in recent years, and I want to give them and the communities that they support a long-term future under a reformed CFP.

Margaret Ritchie: As I represent two fishing ports in Northern Ireland, may I ask the Minister what further progress has been made towards regionalisation?

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to the hon. Lady and to other Northern Ireland Members who have been forceful in putting the case for the fishing communities that they represent. I recognise that they, like many other areas of the country, are affected by an industry in crisis. Our immediate attempts will be to secure for them adequate fish stocks to exploit over the coming year. However, I put on record my determination that they should not continue to live from hand to mouth. As someone who has been in business, I do not know how fishermen can deal with a bank manager when they do not know what they will be able to achieve in three, four or five months' time. I want to give them a longer-term future, in which they can be part of the solution, rather than being constantly browbeaten by an overbearing and multi-layered regulatory system.

Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the Minister, but may I remind those on the Treasury Bench that there are a lot of questions to get through, and that a little economy is needed in their answers?

Biodiversity

Andrew Rosindell: What recent steps her Department has taken to maintain the level of biodiversity.

Caroline Spelman: We will act on agreements reached at the successful biodiversity conference in Nagoya through a new biodiversity strategy for England, which will be published alongside the natural environment White Paper in the spring.

Andrew Rosindell: Will the Secretary of State outline the Government's policies on the protection of biodiversity in our 16 British overseas territories? In particular, will she tell us what the Government are doing to protect the biodiversity of the Henderson island, one of the Pitcairn Islands, where an appalling rat infestation has caused 25,000 chicks to be killed every year?

Caroline Spelman: I think that everyone in the House is well aware of my hon. Friend's concern about, and interest in, the overseas territories. I am delighted to be able to tell him that while attending the biodiversity conference, and the day before, I was able to announce additional spending under the Darwin initiative and, specifically, help with the protection of the Henderson petrel.

Nocton Dairies

Bob Blackman: What representations she has received on the proposed provision of a super-dairy in Lincolnshire by Nocton Dairies; and if she will make a statement.

James Paice: I have received numerous letters on this subject from animal welfare organisations, Members of Parliament and individual members of the public. I recently met a group of Members and others to discuss their concerns. However, I must emphasise that the proposal is for planning consent, on which I cannot comment.

Bob Blackman: Animal welfare organisations, dairy farmers and all who care about natural food in this country rightly fear that this is the thin end of a very thick wedge, with the potential for activities such as those that go on in California. What action will the Minister take to ensure that that does not happen?

James Paice: I readily understand that the idea of mega-dairies creates strong emotions, although I cannot talk about a specific example. I believe, however, that we should be led by the real evidence and the science, which is why DEFRA has commissioned a three-year study at the Scottish agricultural colleges of the issues surrounding mega-dairies. A separate study of the directly related subject of the genetics of high-yielding cows is also taking place. I promise the House that if the outcomes of those studies-we should have the first results towards the end of next year-precipitate the need for action, action will be taken.

Kerry McCarthy: When I have raised the subject with the Minister in the past he has made clear that this is a planning issue, but he has also said that he personally has no objections to mega-dairies. Could there not be a moratorium on the granting of planning applications for big schemes that are in the pipeline, such as Nocton's, until the results of the reviews that he mentioned have been made public?

James Paice: I entirely understand the hon. Lady's point, but no Minister in DEFRA has the power to create a moratorium. This is entirely a planning matter, and it is up to the local district council to decide how to respond. I have no powers to stop the development.

Higher Level Stewardship Schemes

Daniel Poulter: What recent representations she has received on provision of funding for permissive access routes under higher level stewardship schemes in rural areas.

Richard Benyon: About 3,000 current agri-environment agreements support permissive access, contributing around 3% of the public rights of way network. As part of the spending review, we have looked very closely at how best to maximise the funds that we receive from the European Union for higher level stewardship. Funds will continue to be provided for permissive access under existing HLS agreements, and we will also continue to provide capital payments under new HLS agreements.

Daniel Poulter: As the Minister will know, there are 129 higher level stewardship agreements in Suffolk. They help to provide an excellent link between rural and urban communities, and to interest young people in schools in issues relating to agriculture and food. Given the importance of such schemes in Suffolk, will the Minister agree to meet me, along with Suffolk farmers, to establish how we can develop the schemes further in the county?

Richard Benyon: I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend, and farmers in his constituency. We are keen to maximise the use of money from the rural development programme for England. For every pound that we put into biodiversity or environmental works through HLS, we receive £3 from Europe, whereas access is funded entirely through Government spending. That does not mean, however, that there is not an enormous amount that we can to do to encourage the kind of access to which my hon. Friend has referred. We will secure the capital spending, and we will make further provision to secure access in other parts of the country.

Barry Gardiner: The loss of primitive access from future HLS schemes will have a very detrimental effect on the improvement of schemes under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and various sorts of stiles and benches that are erected in the countryside to provide access for people. How is the Minister going to resolve that, and ensure that the countryside remains open to the entire British population?

Richard Benyon: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that people will be able to claim for items such as stiles because they are capital items, as are car parks and the provision of access for disabled people. Those claims can still be made, therefore. The hon. Gentleman is a very strong advocate of HLS, and he and many other Members were worried that we might not be able to protect it under the spending review. We have done, however: we are going to increase it by 83%, but we are focused on reversing the decline in biodiversity and helping environmental works on farms. That is why we have taken the decisions that we have.

Insurance Premiums (Flooding)

Diana Johnson: What assessment she has made of the effects of proposed changes to her Department's flood defence budget on the level of insurance premiums for homes at risk from flooding.

Richard Benyon: DEFRA is working closely with the insurance industry to maximise the availability of flood insurance cover. We are consulting on changes to the way in which Government funding is allocated to flood and coastal erosion risk management projects. That will help safeguard insurance terms by encouraging increased investment beyond levels that the national taxpayer alone can afford.

Diana Johnson: The insurance market in Hull has been closed since 2007, and unless people had insurance then, they will not be able to get it now. Moreover, for people who can access insurance, premiums have gone up hugely. What does the Minister have to say to my constituents, as even those who currently have insurance are now very concerned that they will not be able to continue to have it in the future?

Richard Benyon: The hon. Lady's constituents, like mine, have suffered greatly from flooding in the past, and what she says is true: there are excess charges and premiums have risen. We have taken forward, from our very successful flood summit, two important working parties with the insurance industry-one on data sharing, so that information on where money has been spent is made available to insurers, and a second on working with the insurance industry so that following the post-2013 statement of principles, there will be an environment in which insurance is still available. The insurance industry will then be able to gear up for a new environment in which specialist brokers can start to help constituents such as the hon. Lady's and mine.

Therese Coffey: Recognising the challenge of securing insurance in certain parts of the country, I recently met representatives of the Association of British Insurers, and they talked about building design and the fact that electric circuits are at the bottom of buildings rather than in the middle and higher. That is one of the primary reasons why people are out of their homes for months if not years, as opposed to merely needing replacement furniture and so forth. Will the Minister agree to meet the ABI to discuss such building design principles?

Richard Benyon: I have met, and do meet, the ABI, and we do talk about such matters. I need do no more than recommend one of the great legends, Mary Dhonau-[Hon. Members: "Maradona?"] No, Mary Dhonau. She runs the National Flood Forum, and her home has frequently been flooded. The last time she was flooded she made no claim because she had taken precisely the precautions that my hon. Friend mentions. I hope that more households will learn from her experience.

Mary Creagh: There was a bit of confusion from the Secretary of State earlier about the figure of 145,000. The figures are in DEFRA's 2009 annual report, and I will happily send the link to the Secretary of State's office so that she can see the delay that the 27% cut has caused.
	The Minister says he is consulting on new flood defence proposals. The new system would remove the Environment Agency's role in deciding who gets flood defences, and communities would be expected to pay a flood tax in order to receive central Government funding. Will this new system not disadvantage people from poorer parts of the country who cannot afford a new flood tax?

Richard Benyon: Oh dear-another own goal, I am afraid. The hon. Lady really must read the consultation documents. She will then see, first, that that is one of Sir Michael Pitt's recommendations, which she and her predecessor were very keen the new Government should continue to put into effect, and secondly, that payment for outcomes is not a flood tax. It is not compulsory; it is an additionality, and it provides clarity for communities that for too long have failed to get their schemes above the line. The hon. Lady's point will be very unwelcome if that is her party's future policy, on its blank sheet of paper.

Mary Creagh: One of the key recommendations of the Pitt review was that investment in flood spending should rise above inflation year on year. No matter what dodgy DEFRA maths the Minister tries to put before the House he cannot disguise a 27% cut in flood defence spending. We increased it by 38% over three years-that is the difference. That gave communities and the insurance industry certainty. He has increased the risk that the insurance industry could walk away from universal flood insurance after 2013. He has already mentioned speciality brokers; does he agree that we will need a new statement of principles in 2013 to make sure that flood insurance is universally available?

Richard Benyon: We will certainly need a new relationship with the ABI post-2013, but the hon. Lady must be careful with the numbers that she bandies around before the House. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) had spoken of 50% cuts in capital for the Department that she now shadows if Labour had been re-elected, and she cannot now decide that that was a pipe dream and was not mentioned. Of course this issue is important: it is about people's homes and flooding. Some 5.2 million homes in this country are at some risk of flooding, and the Government have made this issue a priority. That is why we have protected this budget out of all proportion to other budgets in the difficult round that has been forced on us by the previous Government.

Topical Questions

Mr Speaker: I remind the House that if we are to get down the Order Paper we need short questions and, from Front Benchers, short answers.

Andrew Selous: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Caroline Spelman: I commend the work of those who volunteered their services during the extreme weather, particularly our farmers. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that they provided a valuable service to many communities-from clearing snow to transporting midwives. That is a great example of the big society.

Andrew Selous: Will my right hon. Friend give the House a rough idea of the cost of food imported into the country that we are able to, and have the capacity, to grow?

Caroline Spelman: In 2009 the UK imported indigenous food-food that could be grown in season in the UK-with a total value of approximately £15 billion. Total imports of food, feed and drink in the same period were valued at £32.5 billion.

Mary Creagh: The right hon. Lady's colleague the Minister of State, who has responsibility for forestry, wrote to all MPs in October saying that he would consult the public on the sale of England's forests before the end of the year. We now hear that he has postponed that consultation until the new year-yet in a parliamentary answer to me he revealed that he is busy meeting forestry companies on this very issue. When will the public get their say on the future of England's forests?

James Paice: The hon. Lady is getting a bit carried away. The consultation will start in January, and it is perfectly reasonable for us to discuss with experts in the field the possible implications of all the things that we are thinking of doing before we firm up the ideas that we put to the public for consultation. The hon. Lady must be extremely careful on this subject, because we have just discovered that the previous Labour Government sold 12,000 hectares of forest without any form of sustainable protection for any of it.

Priti Patel: Essex landowners and farmers contribute £1 million annually to the Environment Agency for sea defence and maintenance work, and they have provided information for the Essex shoreline management plan, but they have not been able to access the committees that have made the decisions and finalised that plan. Will the Minister ensure that in future my local farmers will have access to those committees and be fully integrated in the decision making? Will he also pledge to meet representatives in my constituency?

Richard Benyon: I am very concerned by what my hon. Friend says. I know that the Environment Agency contributed £25,000 to the "Managing Coastal Change" project led by the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association. If they are not being listened to as part of the shoreline management process, they should be. I will take every step to ensure that happens.

Nick Smith: I am a keen hill walker, but the Government are selling off England's forests and nature reserves. Why are they selling off those natural assets for a quick buck without getting strong assurances on public rights of way?

James Paice: The hon. Gentleman should have listened to earlier answers. We have not announced that we are selling a single hectare yet. [Hon. Members: "Yes, you have!"] We are going out to consultation on that. The Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported, even if he was not a Member then, sold off 12,000 hectares of forest without protecting the access that he talks about. We will make sure-and it will be in the consultation-that whatever we do protects all public benefits.

Mary Macleod: Green spaces and trees are vital in our cities, and I am fortunate that my constituency has many beautiful parks, including Dukes meadows, Gunnersbury park, Osterley park, Boston Manor park, Syon park and Hounslow heath. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what plans the Department has to plant many more trees across the city of London?

Caroline Spelman: I invite my hon. Friend, and encourage her constituents, to participate in the big tree plant campaign, which was launched at the beginning of December and will continue, and for which there are publicly available funds. We will do this in partnership with a number of charities, and I imagine that they have members in her constituency. In participating, she will demonstrate the effectiveness of this big society approach.

Jim Sheridan: This Con-Dem Government propose to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board-a proposal that even Mrs Thatcher refused to implement. The Prime Minister suggests that because of the minimum wage the AWB is just a quango, but that "quango" covers workers' wages, holidays, sick pay, overtime, standby arrangements and even bereavement leave. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is just a quango?

James Paice: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that until the Warwick agreement, when the trade unions forced the Labour party to back down, it was Labour party policy to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board. I should make the point that agriculture has changed dramatically in the 60 years since the board came into being. The previous Government did not reinstate any of the other wages boards when they had the chance to do so. Instead they instigated the Low Pay Commission, and we believe that that is the right body to manage agricultural wages, as it does everybody else's wages.

Simon Hughes: Following the successful Nagoya conference on biodiversity and against the background of the current very important climate change conference in Cancun, can the Secretary of State tell us how she intends to take forward the protection of biodiversity, both in this country and internationally?

Caroline Spelman: As I said in response to an earlier question, the new biodiversity strategy for England will be published alongside the natural environment White Paper in the spring, to which we have had an astonishingly high number of contributions from the public: there have been in excess of 15,000.

Andrew Gwynne: Given the Minister's acknowledgement on Second Reading of the Sustainable Livestock Bill of the serious nature of the deforestation caused by the production of soy for livestock feed, what position will the Government take on reform of the common agricultural policy to reduce UK imports of soy?

James Paice: The hon. Gentleman rightly raises an important issue. We want to reduce our dependency on imported protein, but not if that means, in the short term, destroying our domestic livestock industry only to have to import product fed on soya from the very sources we are trying to protect. On the CAP, it is very early days because the Commission has only just published its early proposals. However, I can assure him that agricultural sustainability, in the dramatically changing circumstances foreseen over the next 40 years, is right at the heart of our position. We want to make sure not only that we have money for research to find alternatives to imported soya, but that we can continue to provide for our domestic needs and those elsewhere.

Angie Bray: Does the Secretary of State agree that monitoring agencies such as the Environment Agency need sharper teeth, so that they can step in more forcefully when pollution rises to unacceptable levels, particularly in residential areas such as Horn lane in Acton?

Richard Benyon: I thought that this subject might come up, because my hon. Friend has a debate on it next week, when I look forward to giving her a more detailed reply. The simple answer is yes, we have to make this clearer. There are no secrets here; the data should be available to local communities and I will do everything I can to support her constituents in this regard.

Denis MacShane: My constituent, Lisa Boughton, who lives in Catcliffe, which was flooded in 2007, has this year-not in 2008 or 2009-suddenly been faced by Aviva with a 79% hike in her insurance premium. Will the Department call in Aviva to say that that is an intolerable burden to put on a person of limited means?

Richard Benyon: I entirely understand that, because it is an experience that many hon. Members around the country have had. This is why we have to engage with the ABI and have an arrangement that continues after 2013. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are working hard with the ABI to try to ensure that the concerns that he has raised are understood.

Greg Hands: The Secretary of State knows that the Thames tideway tunnel scheme has already seen its costs double from £1.8 billion to £3.6 billion, and that it will cause massive construction disruption along the Thames and add £40 per annum to Thames Water customers' water bills. Can the Minister assure me that the Government have tried to find the best value-for-money solution to sewage discharge in the Thames?

Richard Benyon: I can assure my hon. Friend that we continue to challenge the cost assumptions behind that scheme. It is a massive undertaking, and I can see that it will fall on Thames Water's charge payers, so we want to ensure that if it goes ahead, it goes ahead because it has to, and that the work is done at the best possible price.

Joan Ruddock: In 2003 my private Member's Bill became the Household Waste Recycling Act, obliging local authorities to introduce doorstep recycling. Local authorities have until the 31st of this month to comply, and I am glad to say that 94% are in compliance. What does the Minister intend to do about the remaining 6%?

Richard Benyon: The right hon. Lady is a great expert in that field, and I pay tribute to her on that issue. It is an absolute priority for our Department, and it being taken forward as part of the waste review, not only to ensure that the difficult wins are achieved, but to consider how we can continue to encourage local authorities to deal with areas where, on recycling, there is still a long way to go.

Julian Smith: At meetings throughout the dales in recent weeks, constituents have complained that the Yorkshire Dales national park authority is distant and aloof. How will the Minister ensure that in future national park authorities will be more thoughtful towards the communities they seek to represent?

Richard Benyon: I am very pleased with the response so far to our review of national park governance. We like national parks and want to support them, but the Government's firm view at this point is that we should review how they are governed to ensure that they are accountable to local people, and that local people can take part in their decision-making processes. That is the purpose of our review, and I hope that my hon. Friend's constituents are taking part in it.

Elfyn Llwyd: Given the huge importance of provenance and traceability in agriculture, is it not time to consider compulsory country of origin food labelling?

James Paice: I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman, and to remind the House, that two weeks ago the food industry produced a voluntary set of principles to which all major retailers and respective organisations have signed up. The code involves making clear the country of origin of meat, meat products and mainstream dairy products. Alongside that, we have the European negotiations in which the prospect of mandatory labelling is also being considered.

Roger Williams: Much organic matter still finds its way to landfill, where it is not only a hazard but a great waste of sustainable energy. What progress has the Department made in promoting anaerobic digestion as a good way of dealing with such waste?

Richard Benyon: Anaerobic digestion offers not just great potential for our society, which is concerned about diverting food waste up the waste hierarchy and away from landfill, but opportunities for communities, farmers and farming businesses to develop schemes that can deal with waste and feed into our energy system. So we are certainly considering that as part of the waste review, which will be announced in early spring. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take close notice of it.

Tom Greatrex: May I implore the Minister, when he attends next week's fisheries discussions in Brussels, to raise with his French and Italian counterparts the issue of the continued fishing of bluefin tuna? What can he do to ensure that we protect that very endangered species?

Richard Benyon: I hope the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that we have continued the very strong line that his party, when it was in government, took on bluefin tuna. I am very keen to work with him, because he has great expertise in that field, and I can assure him that we raise the issue frequently at every level to ensure that we continue to push towards the protection of that iconic species.

Sarah Newton: The Department is aware of the importance of the port of Falmouth's plans to create new jobs. When will its application for marine consents be decided?

Richard Benyon: I know that that issue is of massive importance to my hon. Friend and her constituents. The decision is imminent; I shall involve her at the earliest stage, and we will work from there. I absolutely understand the importance that the application has for local jobs.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but we must move on.

Speaker's Statement

Mr Speaker: I have received a report from the Tellers in the Aye Lobby in the Division at 7.18 pm last night on deferred Divisions-the hon. Members for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). The number of Aye votes was erroneously reported as 320, instead of 310. I will direct the Clerk to correct the numbers in the  Journal accordingly: Ayes 310, Noes 216.

Business of the House

Hilary Benn: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

George Young: The business for the week commencing 13 December will be:
	Monday 13 December-Second Reading of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill.
	Tuesday 14 December-Consideration of Lords amendments to the Superannuation Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [ Lords], followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Identity Documents Bill.
	Wednesday 15 December-Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Loans to Ireland Bill, followed by a motion to approve the ninth report 2010-11 from the Standards and Privileges Committee.
	Thursday 16 December-Motion relating to park homes, followed by a motion on the work of the Public Accounts Committee. The subjects for both debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 20 December will include:
	Monday 20 December-General debate on firearms control.
	Tuesday 21 December-Pre-recess Adjournment debate, the format of which has been specified by the Backbench Business Committee.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 13 and 20 January 2011 will be:
	Thursday 13 January-A debate on the impact of the comprehensive spending review on the Department of Health.
	Thursday 20 January-A general debate on anti-Semitism.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his statement. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we can expect the localism Bill to be introduced? Two weeks ago, he said it would appear "shortly." On the same day, the Minister for decentralisation, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), said it would be published "imminently." Last week, the Leader of the House said it would appear "very shortly." However, having searched high and low for this shy and retiring Bill, I can find no sign of it. In a week that has been full of difficulty for the Government, is this Bill yet another little local difficulty that they have not been able to resolve?
	May we have a statement on press reports published this week that impostors have been seeking to gain access to the parliamentary estate? It is now clear that a number of individuals seeking jobs here have claimed to be die-hard opponents of lifting the cap on tuition fees, but have turned out to be the very opposite of what they said they were. What can the Leader of the House do to protect us from these potential double agents?
	Has the Leader of the House made any progress on getting the Prime Minister to make his much anticipated apology to head teachers and school sports co-ordinators for his disgraceful attack on what they do? When will the heavily signalled U-turn arrive, or is it stuck in a queue behind the localism Bill?
	Talking about trust in politics, can we have a debate on the subject? I ask because it is not just the Deputy Prime Minister who has been breaking his promises in recent weeks; it has been the Prime Minister, too-on VAT, child benefit, 3,000 more midwives, no spending cuts to front-line services, the knife crime pledge and educational maintenance allowances. On 6 January, at a Cameron Direct event, the Prime Minister said in answer to a question on EMAs that
	"we don't have any plans to get rid of them."
	Two months later, on 2 March, the Education Secretary was even clearer:
	"Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping the EMA. I have never said this. We won't."
	What are our young people, many of whom are watching our proceedings today, to make of such behaviour? Did the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary believe what they were saying or not? Either way, it is no wonder that so many young people think, "Well, if that's the new politics, you can forget it."
	In case the Liberal Democrats think that they can tell us-if they are courageous enough to put their heads above the parapet today-that the Government's tuition fee proposals will increase social mobility, may we have a statement confirming that scrapping EMAs will make it more difficult for young people from low-income backgrounds even to get to the starting gate of higher education? To make matters worse, the coalition is also destroying the Aimhigher programme, which is all about social mobility.
	Turning to this afternoon's debate, even with a 6-minute limit on speeches, very many Members will not get the chance to represent their constituents today. For a long time now, we have been told that there will be no up-front fees. We have been told that all students will pay back at the same rate according to how much they earn. This week, the Business Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister told their party that the proposals will not put anyone off from going to university. If that is the case, can we have a statement on why the Government are proposing that some students from the least well-off households will not have to pay fees in their first year? Either the Government believe what they have been saying-in which case, why make this proposal?-or they have finally accepted what we have been saying about students being put off, in which case their whole argument collapses. We need an answer.
	Is it any wonder that thousands of young people are now standing outside Parliament demanding a say on their future, while MPs from both Government parties are scurrying around hiding from them? They were promised a fair system for their higher education, only to discover that this coalition Government, with the support of Liberal Democrats, is about to let them down-and they will not forget it.

George Young: I said last week that the gestation period for the localism Bill has been a little longer than anticipated. It is now being delivered at high speed to the parliamentary birth centre by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. As I said last week, I hope that it will be before the House well before Christmas.
	On the second issue, the right hon. Gentleman bangs on about the position of the Liberal Democrats on tuition fees, but the Liberal Democrats got their Front Benchers behind a policy on this before the Labour party did. They got themselves organised on Tuesday, but it was not until yesterday that the shadow Chancellor claimed in an article in  The Times that there was
	"a strong case for a graduate tax".
	I have to say that it is he who is a member of the coalition parties when it comes to tuition fees and funding higher education.
	The Government will be delivering school sports, but in a different way from the previous Government; instead of having a centralised PE and sports strategy, we want to redeploy resources and people, putting a new emphasis on competitive sport. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's specific question, we will be announcing how we will spend the money we have allocated for school sport in due course.
	On the education maintenance allowance, we are committed to ensuring that every young person remains in education and training until they are 18. Evidence shows that about 90% of EMA spending goes to students who would have stayed in education anyway. There was an enormous amount of dead-weight. We are replacing the EMA with targeted support for those who face genuine financial barriers to participation.
	As for the time allowed for the debate, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is losing his touch. Last Thursday, when I announced the debate, his only question was on when we would have sight of the text on the Government's proposals. That small spark of interest developed into the conflagration that we saw last night. A business of the House motion was tabled on Friday last week. He could have amended that motion, but the Opposition did not get around to amending it until the debate was well under way and it was far too late. On one of the key issues facing this Parliament, the shadow Leader of the House has been caught asleep at the wheel.
	On the other issues that the right hon. Gentleman addressed, those will be the subject of the debate that is about to take place.

Nicholas Soames: May I ask the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on expanding cadet schemes so that young people can do cadet service not only with the police, the Army, the Navy and the services, but with other uniformed services such as the coastguard? That would greatly benefit young people and give such services the opportunity to contribute to the big society idea in a positive and meaningful way.

George Young: I can think of no bigger supporter of the big society than my hon. Friend. He has proposed a genuinely helpful and innovative idea. I will share with ministerial colleagues the idea of expanding the cadet service to give young people the opportunity to gain experience in the professions and careers that he has mentioned. I will pursue his suggestion with vigour.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the Leader of the House find an opportunity for a debate on bank lending so that I can articulate the concerns of the managing director and owner of the excellent Talgarth Bakery, which I recommend to the Leader of the House? The owner managed to secure funding from the Welsh Assembly Government to purchase a unit of property next door to his business, so that he could expand his work force and his small business. However, Barclays bank asked him for a 35% deposit that he could not secure. He has therefore had to turn down that opportunity for expansion. That is a common tale of small and medium-sized companies not being able to access finance. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate in Government time?

George Young: That is a long way for me to go to buy my bread, but I take note of the excellent quality of the produce in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I hope that other banks that are listening take the opportunity to pick up new custom by offering the facilities that were denied by the firm's existing bank. I hope that that leads to the resources that the company needs being forthcoming. I will, of course, raise with ministerial colleagues the general issue of bank lending, because that was a condition of the support that the previous Government gave.

Matthew Hancock: May we have a debate on the future of the horse racing levy, which, as my right hon. Friend well knows, is the mechanism by which a contribution is made to the racing industry by the gambling industry and those who place bets? The levy is in desperate need of modernisation, and I think that many hon. Members would have an interest in such a debate.

George Young: Indeed, the matter is of great interest to the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire, who has a number of racing stables in his constituency. I am unable to provide an immediate debate in Government time, but the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee is in her place and will have noted the bid. It might be the subject of an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall or in the House.

Christopher Leslie: May we have an urgent debate on the announcement that is buried on page 73 of today's overview of draft legislation for the Finance Bill, which suggests that rather than raising £3.5 billion from the banking levy, the Government will raise only £2.5 billion? On a day when they are telling university teaching professionals and students that some of the cuts are unavoidable, is it not a scandal that they are climbing down on the bank levy?

George Young: The Government are not climbing down on the bank levy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it absolutely clear that he wants to extract the maximum possible resources from the banks. The amount that we will collect is a lot more than the previous Government had planned.

Mark Reckless: May I ask for a statement, or for a clarification from the Leader of the House, on a clause in the coalition agreement, which states:
	"We will...work to limit the application of the Working Time Directive in the United Kingdom"?
	Is that merely an aspiration, or will the Government insist that the directive is disapplied in the UK in return for our agreement to an EU treaty revision?

George Young: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that we are committed in the coalition agreement to limit the application of the working time directive in the UK. That means that we would like to find a solution to the problems caused by the SiMAP and Jaeger judgments. It also means that our position on the retention of the opt-out will be absolutely firm. Any attempt to trade off between a solution to those cases and the opt-out will lead to the same stand-off as in the last negotiations.

Andrew Gwynne: Given that the Government's national security strategy has identified terrorism as the biggest threat that we now face, and in the light of recent events, will the Leader of the House grant a debate on his Government's plans to cut counter-terrorism policing by 10% over the next four years?

George Young: The business next week includes a debate on terrorist asset freezing, and the hon. Gentleman might have an opportunity at that time to raise the issue that he has just touched on.

Philip Davies: In a recent parliamentary answer, the Government confirmed that, to meet our targets on renewable energy, they will add 26% to the average annual domestic electricity bill and a whopping £246,000 to the average medium-sized non-domestic user's bill. Given that the Government are trying to create economic growth and tackle fuel poverty, may we have a debate on this, so that the public can understand how damaging these policies are, and that they represent a futile attempt to tackle global warming, which we have not even had for the past 15 years?

George Young: I understand the concern expressed by my hon. Friend, but the Government remain committed to their carbon reduction targets. In the near future, we will be debating the Energy Bill, which contains a number of measures designed to reduce the cost of energy, which my hon. Friend is rightly worried about, and he might have an opportunity during the passage of that Bill to develop his arguments.

Chris Bryant: Will the Leader of the House make provision on Monday for plenty of time for personal statements by hon. Members? There is a rumour that some Liberal Democrats are planning to abstain this afternoon by voting in both Lobbies. "Erskine May" says:
	"The Speaker has deprecated as 'unparliamentary' the practice of voting in both lobbies as a demonstration of a 'third' position."
	It also states that Members who had done so mistakenly would be allowed, on the following day, to explain in a personal statement which Lobby they had intended to be in.

George Young: I do not think that that is a matter for the Leader of the House.

Nadine Dorries: Members might not be aware that, last Thursday, a piece of legislation was passed in the House which grants the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards the power to investigate any MP he wishes, if he thinks fit, without having received a prior complaint. This would of course result in the headline the following day, "Parliamentary sleaze watchdog investigates MP". Will the Leader of the House please tell us why he saw fit to grant such powers to someone who is unelected and probably has the leakiest office in Westminster, and who also has close relations with the media?

George Young: It was not I who granted those powers. The House decided, without Division, to approve the unanimous report of the Standards and Privileges Committee, which carried the resolution to which my hon. Friend refers.

Geraint Davies: A constituent of mine who served in Her Majesty's armed forces was hooded and beaten in a mock interrogation while serving in the Army. He suffered psychological damage, turned to alcohol and has since had his military pension reduced to 6%. When will we have an opportunity to debate the treatment of military veterans who have served so well in our armed forces?

George Young: In the relatively near future, we will be debating the Armed Forces Bill, which might provide an opportunity to raise such issues. I am very sorry to hear what happened to the hon. Gentleman's constituent, and I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to the incidents that he has just described.

Henry Smith: Many parents in my constituency-not least my constituency caseworker-have experienced immense frustration in dealing with the apparently dysfunctional Child Support Agency. May we have a debate in the not too distant future on the future of the agency?

George Young: My hon. Friend is not unique in having a regular dialogue with the CSA on behalf of his constituents, and I share and understand his concern. He will know that, following the public bodies reform announcement on 14 October, the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission will be abolished as a non-departmental public body, and instead become an Executive agency of the Department for Work and Pensions. It is our intention that all functions of the commission will be moved to the Executive agency. I hope that that will result in an improvement in the performance of that body.

John Robertson: May we have a debate on the education maintenance allowance? The Government keep telling us about a report which states that 90% of people say that they do not need EMAs at all, yet not a single student or member of a student's family was asked to take part in the report. The only people who were asked to take part were sixth-formers, and I suggest that that report simply does not hold water. The Leader of the House should call a debate on that subject.

George Young: I repeat what I said a few moments ago: the evidence shows that around 90% of EMA spending goes to students who would have stayed in education anyway. No Government confronted with that sort of dead-weight expenditure can ignore it, and we will be saving some £0.5 billion by moving to targeted support to help those who face financial barriers to participation.

Andrew Stephenson: Will the Leader of the House grant us a debate on the UK travellers who are still seeking compensation for flights cancelled during April's volcanic ash cloud? Mr and Mrs Ashworth from Colne in my constituency have now been seeking compensation from Ryanair for more than seven months. They have sent in the same forms and provided evidence of their entitlement several times, and done everything that has been asked of them, yet Ryanair is still failing to honour its responsibility, leaving my constituents out of pocket.

George Young: I am very sorry to hear of Mr and Mrs Ashworth's experience, but they are fortunate to have a Member of Parliament such as my hon. Friend to pursue their case. If Ryanair is failing to respond to their claim, the next step is to talk to the complaint handler for the EU state in which the event occurred. In most cases, that is the national aviation regulator, and in the UK, it is the Civil Aviation Authority.

David Winnick: If those who are protesting peacefully and lawfully today are kettled by the police so that they are unable to use even basic facilities for a long time, may I tell the Leader of the House that we will expect a statement from the Home Secretary after the vote today to give the House an explanation of what has occurred? May I also just mention-

Nigel Evans: No, we simply do not have time, and I think that the hon. Gentleman has got his point across.

George Young: I am not going to get involved in the operational responsibilities of the Metropolitan police. I am sure that they will discharge their responsibilities to the public sensibly today, and keep public order outside Parliament.

Robert Halfon: Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motions 520, 598 and 1,160?
	 [That this House welcomes the statement by the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs that there is a 'huge untapped potential' for recruiting more special constables in the future; notes that the number of specials in Essex has doubled over the past four years to nearly 700 officers; further notes the public service of special constables, who are dedicated volunteers, often working in hazardous conditions; believes that transforming the Special Constabulary into a Territorial Army-type force would enable specials to cover more policing duties and would offer excellent value for money, sustaining frontline operational services; further believes that specials are a genuinely local force, like Neighbourhood Watch, who offer an invaluable source of community intelligence; and therefore calls upon the Government to refocus its resources to incentivise special constables, so that they can work more hours and develop professionally.]
	Will my right hon. Friend make a statement on what steps the Government are taking to support special constables, and will he support my planned amendment to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill that would give local authorities the power to give special constables a discount on their council tax?

George Young: I endorse my hon. Friend's support for special constables. As I announced a few moments ago, we are debating the Second Reading of the police Bill on Monday, and if he were lucky enough to serve on the Public Bill Committee, he would have an opportunity to table his amendment to exempt special constables from paying council tax. I should add that powers already exist to allow police authorities, with the support of the chief constable, to pay an allowance to some or all special constables in their area, and the Government also want to do what they can to increase the number of special constables.

Diana Johnson: My constituents at Hull York medical school are concerned that the House of Commons has not had an opportunity to debate fees and medical education. As time will be so short this afternoon in the debate on raising the cap on tuition fees, will the Government allow a debate on that particular issue so that the House can effectively scrutinise the important issue of training our doctors for the future?

George Young: The hon. Lady is right to say that the training of our doctors for the future is important. The Government have no plans for such a debate, but I refer her to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, as this might be a suitable candidate for one of her debates.

David Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, in the 2001 Parliament, the House voted to rise at 7 o'clock on Wednesdays, yet last night we rose at 11 minutes past midnight after debating a motion that was proposed at very short notice and at great inconvenience to many Members? Does he think that that is a satisfactory situation, particularly when the shadow Leader of the House spoke for more than two hours in what was apparently a filibuster?

George Young: To one extent, we were better off having that debate yesterday; otherwise, we would have had it on Tuesday at 10.30 pm, and it would have gone on until even later. We do not plan to have debates after the moment of interruption on a regular basis but, from time to time, it is necessary to ensure that the business of the House is properly discharged.

Gerry Sutcliffe: On school sport, the Prime Minister said in answer to a question I asked last week that there would be a change of heart and that he would examine the matter. We had a debate in which there was wholehearted support from all parties for a change of mind. The redundancy notices are starting to go out to school sports co-ordinators. May we have a decision on what will happen?

George Young: As I said a few moments ago-I think in response to the shadow Leader of the House-the old system cost too much and was too bureaucratic. We will announce how we will spend the money that we have allocated for school sport in due course.

Esther McVey: May I ask the Leader of the House to make time for a debate on careers advice in school? Although I welcome the coalition's plans to introduce an all-age service, we need to ensure universal, specialist careers advice for all our young children, that starts in schools from a very young age and does not impose plans from the top down. I believe that all hon. Members should debate that before any final decisions on provision are implemented.

George Young: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. With the establishment of an all-age careers service by April 2012, we intend to restore a focus on specialist expertise and careers guidance for young people, based on independence and professionalism. I regret that the single focus on careers guidance has been lost in recent years, and we hope to put that right. If we have time for a debate on the matter, I hope that the Back-Bench business committee can allocate one.

Kevin Brennan: Will the Leader of the House enlighten us about why he has decided to pull stumps half-an-hour early this evening, because he did not do so last night? Instead of criticising the Opposition, will he tell us why he has chosen to restrict debate by taking that half-an-hour off when so many Members want to speak?

George Young: We followed the precedent of the previous Government, who, in a similar debate, drew stumps at 5 o'clock.

Stewart Jackson: May we have a debate in Government time on propriety in the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority? My right hon. Friend will know, because three hon. Members, including me and the very experienced right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), have advised him of the matter, that it is alleged that Anne Power, the communications official at IPSA, is touting so-called juicy stories around the Lobby to friendly journalists. That accusation has been made on several occasions. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to speak to the chief executive of IPSA? At the very least, the individual concerned is breaching the Data Protection Act. If true, the position is completely unacceptable and intolerable.

George Young: If that activity took place, it is indeed unacceptable. I think that I am right to say that a question was tabled to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) on the specific issue, and an answer was provided either yesterday or today, stating that IPSA denies that any such contact took place.

Frank Roy: Throughout the past week, towns in my constituency and throughout central Scotland have resembled a scene from Armageddon: children have not been able to get home from school and have had to stay there overnight; students have had to stay in colleges; lorries have been abandoned; people have been stuck in cars for 14 hours; there have been fuel and food shortages, and now the Army is on the streets trying to clear the ice. Will the Leader of the House grant time for a debate or a ministerial statement on the Government's response to the inclement weather, which we used to say happened now and again, yet now comes every year? Things need to change in the United Kingdom; we need to respond far better and far more quickly. Will the right hon. Gentleman grant time for a debate?

George Young: There are real difficulties, which we have all seen on our television screens, in Scotland. Most of the responsibility for addressing them has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, any support that the Westminster Parliament can extend to Scotland will be given. However, I doubt whether there is time for a debate between now and the Christmas recess.

Dominic Raab: Last week, the  Financial Times investigated the EU structural funds for poorer regions. It found £500 million paid out in error and £92 million of suspected fraud last year alone. Mercifully, only 10% of the funds have been paid out. May we have a statement and a debate on the action that is being taken to whip OLAF, the EU's anti-fraud body, into shape and prevent the remaining £260 billion from being squandered?

George Young: The whole House will deplore any waste of funds. Of course, it is right that EU structural funds should be put to the use for which they are designed. I am happy to say that the UK has above average implementation of the SCF, and the UK programmes are on track to meet their targets. I cannot comment on the programmes of other member states, but I will draw the Foreign Secretary's attention to my hon. Friend's general point about the lack of accountability in part of the budget.

Barbara Keeley: On 16 June, in his speech to the Hansard Society, the Leader of the House said that
	"it has simply become too easy for the Government to sideline Parliament; to push Bills through without adequate scrutiny; and to see the House more as a rubber-stamp than a proper check on executive authority".
	He also said that his Government believe that a strong Parliament leads to a better Government. How does he square his belief in a strong Parliament with the Government's shameful truncating of the debate on their proposals on tuition fees?

George Young: I have to say to the hon. Lady, who was Deputy Leader of the House, that we could have done what the previous Government did and allocated five hours for tuition fees, including the business motion. Any time spent on the business motion would have come out of that five hours. The previous Government did that, but we have more respect for Parliament than to do that on this issue.

Andrew Bridgen: The main problem with common sense is that it is not always as common as we would like. This week, it has been reported that farmers in Suffolk have not been allowed to clear snow from the highways because their agricultural vehicles are running on red diesel, which does not attract full road fuel duty. Will the Leader of the House advise on how we can get an immediate derogation for farmers involved in essential snow clearing? What can we do to ensure that the ridiculous situation does not happen again with the next snowfall and the next national emergency?

George Young: It would be absurd to penalise or arrest farmers for clearing snow with tractors that use red diesel. I hope that common sense will prevail, but I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ascertain whether, if a derogation is necessary, one might be issued.

Mike Gapes: May we have an early debate on the fashionable, right-wing notion of the nudge? In particular, may we have a discussion about the impact of the nudge on students and young people in persuading them not to go to the best universities because of the extortionate fees that the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are introducing?

George Young: A nudge is better than a nanny or, indeed, an Act of Parliament. It may be that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene in the debate later, but, in the fear that he might not be called, has made his intervention early. I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Greg Hands: May we have a debate about the lobbying activities of former Ministers in the previous Government? My right hon. Friend will have seen today's report from the Standards and Privileges Committee, which recommends that Geoff Hoon be banned for five years and Stephen Byers for two years from holding a parliamentary pass for what it calls a particularly serious breach of the code of conduct. What can we do to ensure that there is no repetition of that Labour sleaze in future?

George Young: I have announced that there will be a debate on that report on Wednesday evening, when the House will have an opportunity to decide whether it wants to enforce the sanctions that are recommended in it. I very much hope that it will act as a salutary lesson to anybody who is thinking of repeating the offences that were committed in those cases.

Barry Gardiner: Two weeks ago, the Leader of the House was courteous enough to agree that a debate, not in Government time, on war crimes in Sri Lanka might be important for the House to hold. That was before it was made clear that the Secretary of State for Defence is planning to visit Sri Lanka before Christmas. Will the Leader of the House clarify whether that is a private or an official visit? If it is the latter, could we ensure that a debate takes place in Government time on support for war crimes?

George Young: It was a private visit. It is open to the hon. Gentleman, as it is to all hon. Members, to apply for a debate in the pre-Christmas Adjournment debate by doing so before 4 o'clock on Monday. That would be a suitable opportunity for holding a debate on war crimes.

Christopher Pincher: Will my right hon. Friend find time for Ministers to make a detailed statement about the announcement by the CBI lobby group that 25% of manufacturers report greater than normal exports this month, which is the best survey showing since 1995? Does not that show that the Government's economic strategy is bearing fruit? The House should know about it.

George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Manufacturing has a vital contribution to make to exports and to reducing the high unemployment that the Government inherited. The latest CBI monthly industrial trends survey suggests that manufacturers expect output growth in the sector to accelerate in the next three months, and the CBI's output expectations index rose to plus 13 in December from plus four in November. That is encouraging, and indeed signals that the Government's economic policies are working.

Denis MacShane: Tomorrow in Oslo at the Nobel peace prize ceremony, there will be an empty chair, because Liu Xiaobo, who should be there, is rotting in a Communist prison. Nevertheless, his spirit will be there representing all the best in humankind. Can the Leader of the House get the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary to make a statement on why they have said not one public word about Liu Xiaobo? Mrs Thatcher raised Sakharov and Lech Walesa, but the current Government are cowardly and utterly spineless in raising the case of Liu Xiaobo? Will a Minister go to the ceremony tomorrow so that Britain is represented?

George Young: It is deplorable that the winner of the prize is unable to attend the ceremony, and I deplore the loss of liberty involved. Foreign Office questions are next Tuesday, when the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to raise that matter, but I can tell him that it was raised when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary recently visited China.

Pauline Latham: Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the appropriateness of Royal Mail stopping the delivery of mail when there is snow on the ground? In large parts of my constituency, no mail has been delivered for about seven days because Royal Mail feels that it would be inappropriate for postmen and postwomen to go out in case they slip, and small businesses are suffering.

George Young: I am very sorry at that loss of service in my hon. Friend's constituency. I hope that the health and safety measures to which she refers will be fair, balanced and proportionate. I understand that Royal Mail has an agreed policy with the unions whereby they conduct a walk-risk assessment process for the postal round-it is referred to as a "walk". I will raise the issue that she raises with the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), to see whether he has a role to play in restoring the service in her constituency.

Emma Reynolds: The citizens advice bureau in Wolverhampton provides highly valued advice and services to my constituents, including, thanks to the financial inclusion fund, debt advice. Before the comprehensive spending review, the Government said that they would make an announcement on the future of that fund after the CSR, then we heard that it would be made in December, and now we are told that it will be in January. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Government make an urgent statement to end the uncertainty for the citizens advice bureau and my constituents, whom it serves so well?

George Young: There will be a debate next Tuesday in Westminster Hall on legal aid. I pay tribute to the work done by the CAB in the hon. Lady's constituency. If she takes part in that debate, I will ensure that she has an answer to her question.

Jake Berry: Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Weatherfield's-and Rossendale's-most famous son, William Roache, and the cast of "Coronation Street", on the programme's 50th anniversary today? Will he find time for a debate on the contribution of the creative industries to the north-west economy?

George Young: I am sure that the whole House will want to join my hon. Friend in his congratulations to the producers and cast of "Coronation Street" on its 50th anniversary-it is a well loved and enduring British institution. I pay tribute to William Roache, who has starred in the programme since its very first episode. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend's constituency stretches to Weatherfield, but he can probably console himself with the fact that his postbag is not quite as large as that of whichever Member represents Albert square.

John Cryer: The Dear Leader should not dismiss so lightly the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). If peaceful protesters are kettled this afternoon-it frequently happens for six or eight hours or even longer-the Opposition will expect a statement from the Home Secretary.

George Young: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I believe that the police will discharge their responsibilities in the correct way and ensure that any protest is peaceful.

Andrew Turner: Last Thursday, when our minds may have been elsewhere-mine certainly was-we approved changes to the rules of the Standards and Privileges Committee. How much of the allegation that the new rules mean that wide-ranging investigations can be launched without any direction from the Committee or any complaint is correct?

George Young: The commissioner has been given the powers to start an investigation without a formal complaint. That is because in certain cases, complaints appeared in newspapers and were widely reproduced, but nobody made a formal complaint, so there was no investigation. The Standards and Privileges Committee introduced its proposal to address that particular problem, and it was unanimously approved by the House last week.

Jim Sheridan: May I yet again make an impassioned plea to the Leader of the House to use his good offices to encourage Defence Ministers to come to that Dispatch Box to tell us what progress has been made on compensation payments for Christmas island victims and veterans? They have waited long and hard for some compensation. Let us put the legalities aside. Does the Leader of the House agree with early-day motion 1116, that there is a moral obligation on this Government, as indeed there was on the previous one, to pay compensation to those people?
	 [ That this House notes with regret the decision of the Court of Appeal to deny ex-servicemen compensation for the illness and injuries they believe they suffered as a result of exposure to radiation from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted between 1952 and 1958 on mainland Australia, the Australian Montebello Islands and on Christmas Island in the South Pacific; further notes that deleterious health impacts and cancers caused as a result of radiation exposure can appear several years after the exposure; therefore believes that, where compensation claims by atomic test veterans fall foul of a statute of limitations on the time period within which a claim should normally be made, Ministers should still consider those claims; further notes with alarm that Dr Sue Rabbit-Roff, a researcher at Durham University, has contacted 2,500 veterans in the UK and New Zealand establishing that twice as many were suffering from the radiation-induced cancer, multiple myeloma, than had been conceded by successive British governments; welcomes the French government's agreement to compensate its own atomic test veterans, those who contracted illnesses attributed to the country's nuclear tests in the Sahara and French Polynesia, between 1960 and 1996; and calls on the Ministry of Defence to set aside its case in the courts and recognise its moral responsibility to compensate the UK soldiers and their families who acted in good faith to fulfil their military duties but as a consequence have suffered from exposure to radiation. ]

George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings on that subject. He will have the opportunity to put that question to the Defence Secretary at Defence questions on Monday.

David Mowat: Some weeks ago, the House was promised-in a ministerial statement and on the Floor of the House-that by Christmas, there will be a statement on contaminated blood. Will the Leader of the House confirm that that is still the case?

George Young: I confirm what was said in oral questions on Tuesday-that Health Ministers expect to report the outcome of the review before Christmas.

Peter Soulsby: In Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, the Minister with responsibility for forestry made several references to the 1% of Forestry Commission land that has been sold off in recent years. Those routine sales are dwarfed by the fire sale of our English forests that the Public Bodies Bill, which is currently in the other place, makes possible. May we have a separate debate in Government time on the protection of, and access to, our woodland? England's forests are far too precious to be just another clause in that Bill.

George Young: I can give no undertaking that there will be such a debate, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour party sold some 12,000 hectares of land without any reference at all.

Neil Parish: Although I very much welcome the increase in exports, many small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency are finding it difficult to get capital from banks. If they get capital, they find that the banks want to charge enormous interest rates. Is it not time we had a debate on that, because the coalition Government very much want an increase in the private sector?

George Young: It is essential for economic recovery that the banks provide the finance necessary to generate wealth. As I think I said in response to an earlier question, I will draw that issue to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There could be an opportunity to pursue the matter further at the next Treasury questions.

Tom Greatrex: May we have a statement on the work of the Met Office, particularly given its forecast on Sunday evening of inclement weather in Scotland on Monday? During that statement, could we take the opportunity to dissociate ourselves from the disgraceful comments of the Scottish National Minister in the devolved Administration, who sought to lay the blame for their failure to do anything on the Met Office, even though it had warned of inclement weather?

George Young: I am reluctant to be drawn into Scottish politics. I see no prospect of an early debate on the Met Office, but there will be an opportunity to question at the Dispatch Box the Ministers who have overall responsibility for it.

Thomas Docherty: I welcome the opportunity to debate firearms on 20 December. The Leader of the House will be aware-I copied him in-that I wrote to the Home Secretary more than a fortnight ago to ask her to explain why almost 5,000 children have shotgun licences. I am yet to receive a reply, but I am sure that the House will think that one would be appropriate ahead of that debate. Will the Leader of the House urgently investigate that and ensure that the House is informed of the reasons why those children have shotguns?

George Young: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote to the hon. Gentleman yesterday to address his specific queries. I have a copy of the letter with me in case it has not reached him.

Nicholas Dakin: The noble Lord Hill has confirmed to me that students in year 12 currently in receipt of education maintenance allowance will not be able to receive it as they progress into the second year of their post-16 course. They will then become the first cohort of students vulnerable to the new tuition fee regime. I am sure that the Government do not intend that small group of students to pay such a heavy penalty. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made?

George Young: They will be eligible, if they are in financial need, for the continuation of EMA, which was referred to earlier.

Gregg McClymont: Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch have been brought to a standstill by the arctic weather over the past 10 days and local authority resources are at breaking point, and that is before the Government's public sector cuts. May we have a debate on what the spending cuts will mean for this country's future preparedness for winter emergencies?

George Young: That is a matter for the devolved Administration in Scotland, who get a block grant from the UK Government to apply as they think fit. They are accountable for how they discharge their obligations and the priorities on which they decide.

Tom Blenkinsop: May we have a debate in the House about why £2 billion in business rates is being withheld from local authorities until 2013-14, prior to a general election, while the Government are still insisting that front-loaded cuts be imposed on local authorities at present?

George Young: I hope that there will be a statement on local government finance in the relatively near future, when the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to put that question.

Points of Order

Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Under the terms of the timetabling motion for the business that is about to come, if the debate started now, we would take a vote at 5.21 pm, because only five hours are allowed despite the fact that the moment of interruption does not come until 6 o'clock under normal business. Is there anything that can be done, even at this late stage, to get us the extra 39 minutes that we would have had under normal circumstances, so that hon. Members who want to contribute to the debate have a chance to do so?

Nigel Evans: The timetabling for the debate was decided last night.

Thomas Docherty: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have given advance notice of this point of order to the Member in question. During Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions earlier, Mr James Gray directed a racist remark towards my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). What steps can you take to protect Members of the House from the racist views espoused by Mr James Gray, and will you now ask him to apologise?

James Gray: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I cannot imagine what sedentary remark the hon. Gentleman may have heard, but I am certain that had it been out of order in any shape, size or form, Mr Speaker, who was then in the Chair, would have picked me up on it. Further to that, as a Scot born, bred and educated, who never left the borders of Scotland until the age of 21, I think that unlike the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), I have the highest respect and love for my native heath. I would never say a single word against it.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Nigel Evans: No, I will not take any more points of order on this matter. It might be appropriate, particularly given what is about to be debated, that I remind Members of the House that good temper and moderation are characteristics of parliamentary debate. I am sure that if the Chair had heard anything untoward, it would have been dealt with then.

William Bain: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During an answer supplied to me by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs during DEFRA questions this morning, she appeared to imply that a document issued by an agency of her own Department, entitled "Poverty amongst farming households", related solely to the policies of the previous Government. I have examined the document very carefully since DEFRA questions and found references to a document from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and to the Agricultural Wages Board. Can you provide the House with some assistance on how we can ensure that Government Departments communicate more effectively with each other, how Secretaries of State can be properly appraised of the contents of their own Departments' documents, and when-

Nigel Evans: Order. This sounds like an extension of Question Time, but I am sure that Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard the points that have been made.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Loans to Ireland Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr Secretary Hague, Secretary Vince Cable, Mr Secretary Paterson, Danny Alexander, Mr Mark Hoban, Mr David Gauke and Justine Greening, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with the making of loans to Ireland by the United Kingdom.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 125) with explanatory notes (Bill 125-EN).

Business without Debate

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.
	 Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Higher Education Fees

Nigel Evans: With Mr Speaker standing next to me, I have to inform the House that he has not selected any of the amendments on the Order Paper.

Vincent Cable: I beg to move,
	That, for the purpose of section 24 of the Higher Education Act 2004, the higher amount should be increased to £9,000, and to £4,500 in the cases described in regulation 5 of the draft regulations in Command Paper Cm 7986, and that the increase should take effect from 1 September 2012.

Nigel Evans: With this we shall discuss the following motion on education:
	That the draft Higher Education (Basic Amount) (England) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 29 November, be approved.

Vincent Cable: The terms of the statutory instrument are narrow, but I think you ruled yesterday evening, Mr Speaker, that you would like us to entertain debate on the wider issues involved, because they arouse very strong feelings inside and outside the House. The instrument represents a central part of a policy that is designed to maintain high-quality universities in the long term, that tackles the fiscal deficit and that provides a more progressive system of graduate contributions based on people's ability to pay.
	I shall briefly go over the sequence of events that has led to this debate. I became Secretary of State in May, when the Browne report was being conducted. It had been commissioned by the previous Labour Government last November. They had asked the former chief executive of BP to conduct a report in order to prepare the way for an increase in tuition fees following the earlier introduction of fees, and then top-up fees, by the last Government.

Kevin Brennan: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Vincent Cable: I will take interventions later. You have asked, Mr Speaker, that both Front Benchers should keep their introductions brief.  [Interruption.] As hon. Members know, I am very happy to take interventions, but I will take them when I have developed an argument.  [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State should resume his seat for a moment, and I apologise for having to interrupt him.
	There are strong opinions on this matter, and passions are aroused. That is understood and accepted. What is not accepted by any democrat is that the Secretary of State should not receive a fair hearing. The right hon. Gentleman will be heard, and if Members are making a noise and then expecting to be called, I fear that is a triumph of optimism over reality.

Vincent Cable: When I became Secretary of State, I invited Lord Browne to make two adaptations to the terms of reference that he had undertaken under the previous Government. The first thing that I asked him to do was to see how we could make the existing system of graduate payments more progressive and more related to future graduates' ability to pay. He undertook to do that, and we have done further work to develop the progressivity of the system. As a result, the Institute for Fiscal Studies was able to conclude that the package that we have produced is more progressive than the existing system and more progressive than the Browne report. Concretely, what that means is that just a little under 25% of all future graduates will pay less than they do under the current system that we inherited from the Labour Government.

David Hanson: rose -

Barry Gardiner: rose -

Vincent Cable: I will give way in a moment.
	The second request that I made of Lord Browne was to ask him to look thoroughly at the alternatives, and particularly at the alternative of a graduate tax. Like many people coming fresh to the issue, I thought that the graduate tax was a potentially good and interesting idea, and I wanted it to be properly explored. He reached the same conclusion that the Dearing report reached under the Labour Government and the same conclusion that the shadow Chancellor reached when he had responsibility for this policy. The conclusion was that the pure graduate tax has many disadvantages: it undermines the independence of universities and, most seriously, it is, in the words of Lord Browne, simply unworkable. I am surprised, therefore, that the Leader of the Labour party, after all this experience and independent analysis, has chosen to drive his party down the cul-de-sac of this policy.

Gareth Thomas: rose -

Vincent Cable: I will take the hon. Gentleman's intervention after reading to him a comment from someone whom I would have thought would have been one of his political allies. The education editor of the  New Statesman-that publication is normally favourably disposed to the Labour party-commented on Labour's current position:
	"Labour has been seduced into sentimental, sloppy thinking that defends the interests of the affluent, not the poor... To describe students as facing a lifelong "burden" of "crippling" debt is simply bizarre, particularly for a Labour leader who wants to replace the debt with a graduate tax that the rich would avoid".

Gareth Thomas: On sloppy thinking, crucial to the Government's case has been their advocacy of the national scholarship fund, but since the weekend when he announced further details, have the Secretary of State's plans not been unravelling rather fast? Vice-chancellors are criticising it left, right and centre, and yesterday, the Institute for Fiscal Studies told us that it provides a financial incentive for universities to turn away students from poorer backgrounds. How is he going to fix it?

Vincent Cable: The consultation on the national scholarship scheme is still open to representations from the hon. Gentleman, vice-chancellors and others in order to achieve an objective that I hope he shares, which is to ensure that people from disadvantaged backgrounds achieve access to higher education. That is something the Labour Government failed miserably to do in relation to the Russell group universities. As it happens, the IFS looked at one of a series of options, but did not take account of the fact that, under our proposed scheme, those universities that wish to progress beyond the £6,000 cap will be obliged to introduce the scholarship scheme without the detrimental effects he described.

Jack Straw: rose-

Vincent Cable: I will take the former Home Secretary's intervention.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, but he knows that the central issue is the fact that the teaching grant is to be cut by 80%, the burden of which is to be transferred to students. That is justified by the Government's assessment of the scale of the deficit. Yesterday, in evidence to the Treasury Select Committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that he is anticipating tens of billions of pounds of receipts from privatisations not included in the comprehensive spending review. What estimate does the Secretary of State put on those receipts, and to what extent have they been taken into account in his calculations of the scale of the deficit and the cut to the grant?

Vincent Cable: I am glad of that intervention from the right hon. Gentleman, who, given his history in the previous Cabinet, is-I think-a co-author of the package of measures we inherited, and which lacked progressivity. His intervention is helpful in directing us to the heart of the debate, which is the question of how we fund universities and where the money comes from. That is exactly what I now wish to deal with.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Vincent Cable: I will take other interventions later. The Browne report-

Several hon. Members: rose -

Vincent Cable: I will move on to the question of financing.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is not giving way for the moment.

Vincent Cable: For the funding of universities, Lord Browne recommended-in a report that the then Labour Government endorsed, I think, in their manifesto-that there should be no cap on university fees and a specific proposal for a clawback mechanism that gave universities an incentive to introduce fees of up to a level of £15,000 a year. That was the report given to the Government. We have rejected those recommendations and proposed instead that we proceed as the statutory instrument describes. That involves the introduction of a fee cap of £6,000, rising to £9,000 in exceptional circumstances.
	I will now explain the basic economics of that problem in the light of the intervention from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw).

David Hanson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Brian H Donohoe: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Vincent Cable: No, I will not. I will give way later, when I have finished my point.
	The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), who is the Opposition spokesman on this matter, rather helpfully sent a circular letter to MPs yesterday in which he sketched out the basic economic framework within which these decisions have been made. He said that
	"MPs have been asked to vote on increasing the fee cap to £9000"-
	he did not mention the £6,000, but never mind-
	"because the Government is choosing to make a disproportionate cut to the university teaching budget...in a spending review with an average cut of 11%".

Several hon. Members: rose -

Vincent Cable: I will finish my point.
	As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government, like the previous Government, are not making average, across-the-board cuts of 11% in every Department. We have chosen, as did the previous Government, to have some protected Departments-health, schools, pensions and aid. The logical consequence of that is much higher cuts in unprotected Departments. I am sure that he remembers the IFS analysis that told us, in the wake of the March Budget, that a Labour Government were planning to cut unprotected Departments by 25.4%.

John Denham: The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to refer to my letter. He knows full well that the IFS analysis carried out after the Budget does not stand up to scrutiny, and reflects neither the decisions taken by the Chancellor in the comprehensive spending review nor the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) setting out our approach. However, will the Secretary of State help the House by identifying which other major spending programmes have been cut by 80%?

Vincent Cable: The 80% fact-and it is a fact-derives from the following: most major Departments have had to take spending reductions of about 25%, as they would have done under a Labour Government. I wish to take the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in opposition through what that has meant for the teaching grant to universities and university funding in general.

Albert Owen: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Vincent Cable: I shall develop this point and then take an intervention.
	What were the options for a Department facing 25% cuts of the kind that the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen himself was going to introduce? Some 70% of all spending in the Department is on universities. He could-and I could-have chosen to make the cuts elsewhere, the largest category would have been in further education. We could have made the choice to cut apprenticeships and skill-level training by a modest amount, but we need to deal with the problem we have inherited of 6 million adults in this country without the basic literacy of a 12-year-old. We could have cut that, but we chose not to. So we were left with the question of how to make cuts in the university budget of about 25%. There were various options-

Several hon. Members: rose -

Vincent Cable: I will finish this section and then take an intervention.
	There were various options for cutting the university budget. We could have reduced radically the number of university students by 200,000, but all the evidence suggests, as the previous Government used to argue, that increasing university participation is the best avenue to social mobility. We therefore rejected that option and did not cut large numbers of university students.
	We could have made a decision radically to reduce student maintenance, which would have been easier, less visible and less provocative in the short run. We could have done that, but the effect of that would have been to reduce the support that low-income students receive when they are at university now. We rejected that option. We could have taken what I would call the Scottish option. We could have cut funding to universities without giving them the means to raise additional income through a graduate contribution. The certain consequence of that would have been that in five to 10 years, the great English universities-Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol and the rest-would still be great, world-class universities, whereas universities such as Glasgow, which I used to teach at, and Edinburgh would be in a state of decline. We rejected-and rejected consciously-all those unacceptable options.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Vincent Cable: I will take a Scottish intervention.

Pete Wishart: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State. Does he even begin to understand or appreciate the potentially disastrous impact that trebling tuition fees in England will have on Scottish universities? What will he do to mitigate that?

Vincent Cable: I most emphatically will not be following the advice of the Scottish nationalists in government, who are starving Scottish universities of resources and reallocating priorities to cut schools. That is what has happened in Scotland.

John Baron: I am sure that we can all agree that all students who would benefit from a university education should be entitled to do so, regardless of their financial situation. My concern is that by increasing the tuition cap, participation levels among lower and middle-income students will fall away. What assurance can the Government give that the situation will be monitored closely and that corrective action will be taken, should participation levels fall away?

Vincent Cable: Yes, of course I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Of course the policy will be monitored, and it will reflect the evidence that emerges. We have put in place not merely a series of measures to protect low-income graduates, which we have done through the threshold, but a series of measures designed to help children from low-income families to go to university, notably by increasing the maintenance grant from its level under the previous Government, giving access to an extra 500,000 pupils.

Andrew Selous: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I wonder whether he could say something about how he sees the future position of English students relative to Scottish and Welsh students. Should we not be looking to secure a degree of fairness between families of similar economic circumstances across the United Kingdom in years to come?

Vincent Cable: I believe, as the Government as a whole believe, in devolution. We believe that the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have got to make their own decision, but the inevitable consequence of the tightening of public finance-a tightening that is happening under this Government, but which would happen under any Government-was bound to be a system of graduate contributions, which is what will happen throughout the UK. However, that is for those Administrations to decide.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Vincent Cable: I will take one more intervention.

Rushanara Ali: Despite this talk of supporting people on low incomes, I find it quite hard to stomach what I am hearing, because in my constituency, for example, the vast majority of young people come from low-income backgrounds, yet they will be losing support through the education maintenance allowance, from which 88% of Bangladeshi children across England benefit. That one ethnic minority group, along with white working-class children, will be prevented from going on to higher education. Coupled with that are the cuts in the future jobs fund-£1 billion, and we are still waiting to hear-so please think again.

Vincent Cable: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. Just before the Secretary of State replies, let me say that an enormous number of Members wish to speak in this debate. I want to accommodate as many as possible. From now on, interventions must be brief.

Vincent Cable: Yes, of course I hear what the hon. Lady says about the education maintenance allowance. What I would say is that the existing system that we inherited was enormously wasteful. Large numbers of pupils received the EMA who did not need it to stay on at school. However, she is quite right to stress the fact that there are large pockets of deprivation in Britain, and her constituency in the east end of London is one of them. We understand that. The purpose of the pupil premium, which is being introduced into the school system, is precisely to address that problem of giving support to schools and pupils in areas of high deprivation.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Vincent Cable: I intend to press on.

Peter Bone: Will the Secretary of State give way before moving on?

Vincent Cable: I will take an intervention later, if my hon. Friend does not mind.
	We have eliminated, I think, most of the other alternatives to raising funding for universities. I hope that nobody on the Opposition Benches is seriously arguing that we should drastically reduce the number of students, that we should drastically reduce maintenance or that we should simply withdraw funding from universities. The only practical alternative was to retrieve income for universities from high-earning graduates once they have left. That is the policy that we are pursuing, and today, 50 university vice-chancellors have come forward and endorsed this approach to the strengthening of university funding in the long term.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Vincent Cable: Opposition Members who follow these arguments closely have often made the following argument. "We acknowledge," they say, "that universities will continue to have high levels of income, but you're replacing public funding with private funding, and this is"-in some sense-"ideological." [Hon. Members: "It is!"] That is a debating point, and I am happy to take it on. At present, roughly 60% of the income of universities comes from the public sector, through different funding streams. The rest comes from private sources-something that the previous Government were trying to encourage. That will be reversed: in future, roughly 40% of university funding will come from the public sector and 60% will come from the private sector. I am keen to encourage more private funding of universities, which is why I have spoken to the director general of the CBI. He is approaching all his members to ensure that we have a significantly higher level of employer support for apprenticeships, sandwich courses and other- [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. First, there is still far too much noise in the Chamber. Secondly, when the Secretary of State has indicated that he is not giving way, Members must not continue standing. That is the situation.

Vincent Cable: I hope that not too many Opposition Members would regard additional funding from employers as somehow ideologically contaminated, because we will need more resources going into universities, not less, and that is what we are doing.

Simon Hughes: Under the fees scheme introduced by the Labour party, all universities ended up charging at the highest rate. One of the worries out there is that all universities might end up being allowed to charge £9,000. What assurance-what rules, what guarantees-can my right hon. Friend give that "exceptional" will mean "exceptional", and that £6,000 will be the limit for most universities in the country?

Vincent Cable: That is a highly pertinent question in the light of the experience of the last Government, who had a two-tier system. There was a migration of all universities to the top of the range. They operated, in effect, like a cartel, and that must be stopped. It must not happen again, and there are several means by which that will happen. First, any university that wants to go beyond £6,000 will have to satisfy very demanding tests of access for low-income families, including through the introduction of the scholarship scheme. Newer institutions, particularly further education colleges providing accredited courses, will drive down the cost of high quality basic teaching. If universities defy the principle of operating on a competitive cost basis, it may well be necessary to introduce additional measures to observe the principle that my hon. Friend has correctly summarised, which is that-

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Secretary of State, but I must ask him to address the House. His natural courtesy causes him to look at the Member to whom he is responding, but I want the whole House to hear what he has to say.

Vincent Cable: I am simply saying that there are potentially other mechanisms by which universities that exceed the £6,000 level will not be allowed to behave in the way that they behaved under the last Government.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Vincent Cable: Let me proceed. Of course increasing the graduate contribution is bound to have an effect-it is an additional cost-to graduates. I therefore want to summarise the steps we are taking to make sure that this happens in a fair and equitable way. First of all, no full-time students will pay upfront tuition fees and part-time students doing their first degree will for the first time-unlike under the last Government-have the opportunity to obtain concessional finance under the student loan scheme arrangements.
	Yesterday, after discussing the issue with the Open university and others, I made a further announcement that we will increase the range of that access from students spending a third of their time in education, as originally proposed, to those spending a quarter of their time in it. That will widen enormously the number of part-time students who will have access to supporting finance in order to pursue their education.

Brian H Donohoe: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Vincent Cable: Thirdly, we will introduce a threshold for graduate repayment of a £21,000 salary-a significantly higher level than before-and it will be uprated annually in line with earnings. It is important to emphasise that point because under the Labour Government, there was a threshold of £15,000, but it was never uprated on any basis whatever. I wish to communicate what I said yesterday-that students who were pegged at that £15,000 threshold under the current arrangements established by the Labour Government, will in future have annual uprating in line with inflation. Those existing students whom the last Government did absolutely nothing to protect will have inflation-proofing in future.

Andrew Percy: rose-

Vincent Cable: Furthermore, we are introducing variable interest rates so that those on high incomes pay relatively more to ensure the progressivity of the scheme, as a result of which a £30,000 salary will carry a monthly payment of approximately £68, which is far lower, incidentally, than it would be under a graduate tax system. Under that system, people would have to start paying much earlier and at much lower levels of income.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Vincent Cable: No, I am not giving way.

Mr Speaker: The Secretary of State is not giving way at the moment and must be allowed to continue- [Interruption.] Order. He must be allowed to continue his argument.

Vincent Cable: As well as the measures we have taken to improve access for low-income families, as opposed to the separate problem of low-income graduates, we have made it clear that additional grant provision will be made, as I said in response to an earlier intervention. In addition, universities wishing to move to a higher threshold will have demanding tests applied to their offer requirements in respect of access.
	It is worth recalling the situation that we have inherited. There are a lot of crocodile tears from Labour Members, so let me remind them that social mobility, judged by the number of people from disadvantaged backgrounds getting into Russell group universities, has deteriorated over the last decade. There are currently 80,000 free school meal pupils, of whom only 40 made it to Oxbridge -40 out of 80,000. That is fewer than from some of the leading independent schools. That is a shameful inheritance from people who claim to be concerned about disadvantaged backgrounds-and we intend to rectify it.
	Let me conclude in this way. I do not pretend-none of us pretends-that this is an easy subject. Of course it is not. We have had to make very difficult choices.  [Interruption.] Yes, we have. We could have taken easier options, but we were insistent that at the end, we would make a substantial-

Brian H Donohoe: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Did not the Secretary of State say that he was going to give way? Why is he not doing so?

Mr Speaker: I understand what the hon. Gentleman has said, but that is not a point of order; it is a point of frustration.

Vincent Cable: rose -

Brian H Donohoe: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Vincent Cable: I have given way to several of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues and several of my own, and I now wish to summarise where we are.
	As I was saying, there have been difficult choices to make. We could have made a decision drastically to cut the number of university students; we could have cut student maintenance; we could have cut the funding to universities, without replacing it. Instead, we have opted for a set of policies that provides a strong base for university funding and makes a major contribution to introducing the deficit, while introducing a significantly more progressive system of graduate payments than we inherited. I am proud to put forward that measure to this House.  [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.  [Interruption.] Order.  [Interruption.] Order. I understand the passions, but the more noise, the greater the delay and the fewer the number of Members who will have a chance to contribute. I want Back Benchers to have the chance to contribute and I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to help me to help them.

Paul Farrelly: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Monday, I tabled three named day questions relating to the evidence underpinning Government policy. They were about what studies the Government have commissioned about the potential impact of these higher fees on participation, particularly on longer courses such as languages, medicine, law and architecture and on post-graduate teaching courses. Those questions were due for answer at noon today, but answer has come there none. What can the House do, Mr Speaker, to ensure that Government better inform us with vital information so that we can properly debate subjects like this, which are of interest to the whole nation?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am in favour of timely replies to parliamentary questions. He is an experienced hand in this House and must pursue these matters through the Table Office and in other ways; we cannot be detained now by what he has just said.

John Denham: I note that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have already walked out of the debate. It is a shame that the two architects of this policy do not have the courtesy to stay and listen to both sides of the debate.
	I fear I may have to lower Opposition Members' expectations. Those of my hon. Friends who have come here expecting some good party political knockabout-U-turns, broken promises and fees policies described by the Deputy Prime Minister as a "disaster" that he now claims to believe in-need to know that I am not going to do that speech. So much of the media coverage of this issue has been dominated by Liberal Democrat splits that we could be forgiven for thinking that today's vote is about the future of the Liberal Democrats. It is not about the future of the Liberal Democrats; it is about something much more important than that. There are millions of parents and millions of current and future students who do not care about the Liberal Democrats, but who do care about the huge fee increase that we are being asked to decide today. Today's decision must be taken on the facts and on the merits. If this Tory measure goes through with the support or abstention of Liberal Democrats, that party will forfeit the right to call itself a progressive political party.
	The House can stop that decision today. The deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats says that he cannot support the Government-as well he might, because his local university's funding will be cut from £38 million to £3 million a year, and it has already said that it wishes to charge the full £9,000 tuition fee. The Liberal Democrats' deputy leader says that he may vote against the Government, and if he and every Member of the House-not just Liberal Democrat Members, but Conservative Members, Labour Members and Members of other parties-vote against the proposal today, it will fall.
	Let me set out why Members should vote against, or vote for a delay and a rethink, rather than abstaining.

Jim Cunningham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State said earlier that 15 vice-chancellors support him? I have a petition from the university of Warwick of 240 leading academics in this country who object to the increases in charges and, more importantly, call for a public inquiry into the future of education. What does my right hon. Friend think about that?

John Denham: There is widespread disquiet not only in the academic community. Significantly, the Secretary of State referred to the letter from Universities UK but did not read it out, because it makes it absolutely clear that Universities UK opposes the cuts in higher education funding on which the fee increase is based. He has persuaded vice-chancellors, with a gun to their head, that as the money is going the fee increase is the only option in town, but that hardly speaks of him persuading the university community of the policy.
	As you said last night, Mr Speaker, today's vote is on a narrow issue-the fee cap. Behind that, however, is the most profound change in university funding since the University Grants Committee was set up in the 1920s. It is the ending of funding for most university degrees. It is a huge burden of debt on graduates. It is an untried, untested and unstable market for students.
	Although there is always room for improvement, England enjoys a world-class university system: world-class in research, with a disproportionate number of the best research universities; and a richness and diversity of higher education to compare with the best. The risks are so high, and the consequences so unclear, that no sane person would rush the proposal through without proper debate or discussion. Today, however, we do not even have the promised higher education White Paper to tell us how it is meant to work.

Several hon. Members: rose -

John Denham: I give way to a representative of one of those leading research universities.

Julian Huppert: While the right hon. Gentleman is talking about fundamental changes, will he talk about his party, including him, voting to introduce fees and breaking the principle of free education? That is a fundamental change, for which he voted, and he voted for top-up fees against manifesto commitments. Will he apologise?

John Denham: The 2001 Labour manifesto-I was a Back Bencher at the time, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) was the responsible Minister-ensured that the policy did not come into force until there had been a further general election. That is not the coalition's proposal.
	I am sorry that the Prime Minister has left, because he did his bit yesterday to run down our English universities, saying that they were unsustainable, uncompetitive and unfair. He did not say that they were world class or praise what they had achieved; he could only knock them. "Uncompetitive"? They are the second most popular destination for overseas students in the world, but the Prime Minister tells the world that they are uncompetitive. That is a great deal of help for our universities.
	The Prime Minister, however, has some interesting thoughts about overseas students. When he was in China, he told Chinese students that
	"we won't go on increasing so fast the fees on overseas students, because in the past we have been pushing up the fees on overseas students and using that as a way of keeping them down on our domestic students. So we have done the difficult thing in our government which is to put up contributions from British students."
	For foreign students, he said,
	"we should be able to keep that growth under control."
	Now we know why the Prime Minister wants to push up contributions-to keep down the price for Chinese students. Extraordinary!
	Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the current model of higher education funding is not providing enough money. Quoting the Browne review, he said that public funding per student is lower in real terms than 20 years ago. We are bound to ask, "How the hell did that happen?" It did not happen under Labour. I can tell the Prime Minister how it happened. Between 1989 and 1997, under the previous Conservative Government, public funding per student fell by 36% in real terms. Who was the special adviser to the Conservative Chancellor at that time? It was the Prime Minister. If he wants to know whose fault it was, he ought to look more carefully in the mirror in the morning.
	Now, the Prime Minister is at it again. He was cutting university funding then; he is cutting university funding now. This is a Tory policy of cutting higher education; unfortunately, this time they have Liberal Democrats to take it through with them.

Tristram Hunt: Why does my right hon. Friend think that the Government are so intent on destroying the humanities base in this country? Humanities is one of the leading areas of research and excellence, and they are withdrawing public funding. What do they have against it?

John Denham: It is hardly for me to try to get inside the heads of Government Members. If we read what they say, however, we see that they think, purely and simply, that subjects have no value unless they have a value in the marketplace.

Anne McIntosh: According to the last figures available, when the shadow Minister was in government, of the 80,000 children on free school meals, only 40 went on to Oxford and Cambridge. Does he not accept that his proposals for a graduate tax would mean less social mobility and people repaying a higher amount at an earlier stage?

John Denham: No, I do not. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will come to that point in a moment.
	As a result of these Tory policies, this country will stand alone with Romania as the only OECD countries cutting investment in higher education. The Prime Minister's speech yesterday, which was meant to be a defence of this policy, shows that he does not understand the most basic features of his policy. The fee increases are not designed to raise extra money for universities. That was Labour's scheme-we took the difficult decision to introduce top-up fees, to add to record university income, and to enable more students to go to better-funded universities. The Prime Minister's plan, put forward by the Business Secretary, is totally different. Fees are being trebled simply to reduce the 80% cut in the funding of university teaching, not to raise extra money. Most graduates will be asked not to pay something towards their university education, but to pay the entire cost of their university education. Universities will have to charge £7,000 to £8,000 simply to replace the money they lose, and many universities will lose 90% of their public funding. That is what is at stake today .
	If the House passes the fee increase, English students and graduates will face the highest fees of any public university system anywhere in the developed world: higher than France, higher than Germany, and higher-yes-than the United States of America.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that the repayments threshold is being increased to £21,000, and the fact that anyone earning less than £25,000 a year will pay less than £1 a day for university education?

John Denham: I will come to that in a moment. It is on the standard handout. Let me say first, however, that the hon. Gentleman may not realise that the increase to £21,000 will happen in 2016, when it will be worth, in real terms, precisely what our threshold was worth when we introduced it.

Several hon. Members: rose -

John Denham: I must make some progress.
	Most graduates will be paying off their debts for 30 years. Under the current scheme, the average is 11 years. The children of those graduates will have started university before they have paid their own fees. As I will show, the payment system is not fair.

Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend accept that reducing access and increasing relative price to our competitors will reduce the productivity and tax receipts of future generations and undermine economic growth? What we should be doing is making the bankers pay the levy rather than giving it back in corporation tax, and investing that money in higher education and the future productivity and economic growth of this country.

John Denham: We certainly need to sustain investment in higher education, but as-again-I will show in a moment, it is not necessary to adopt our macro-economic policies to know that the Government could have made a different choice. No other country in the world is taking the step we are taking, and no other country in the world can understand why we are taking it. As always, rather than defending their position, the Government give the pathetic answer, "We had no choice." But they did have a choice. Everyone knows they had a choice.
	We in the Labour party would take a more measured and responsible approach to deficit reduction, but even on its own terms, if the coalition had cut higher education in line with the rest of public services, we would have been looking at fee increases of a few hundred pounds. The Business Secretary has told us that the figure should be not 10%, but 20%. That would mean fee increases of not much over £4,000, rather than the £6,000 to £9,000 for which the House is being asked to vote today.

John Baron: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the fact that most independent experts agree that the graduate tax, which seems to be the policy of the Labour party, will make students worse off because they will have to pay back more debt and pay it back earlier. Why does he not address that fundamental point?

John Denham: Let me explain in a straightforward way to the hon. Gentleman and others who may be confused. There are two stages in this process. The first is deciding how much public funding there will be and how much money needs to come from graduates. The second is deciding how the graduates are to make their contributions. The first stage is the critical one to consider today, because it is the 80% cut in university education that is forcing the graduate contributions so high. As for the second, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, as did the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), I will set out the case in a few moments.

Several hon. Members: rose -

John Denham: I need to make some progress, because I am coming to an issue that concerns many Members.
	The Business Secretary pleads that he has no money in his budget. I do not see why future generations should pay through the nose for his incompetence in allowing his budget to be cut by more than that of almost anyone else in Whitehall. The Government did not have to do that, and the truth is that in the long run it will almost certainly cost the taxpayer more.
	What is the Government's plan? I will tell the House. Every year they will borrow £10 billion to fund student loans, and every year they will write off £3 billion of the £10 billion that they have just borrowed because they cannot collect the loans. That is as much money as they are cutting from university teaching, but as the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Higher Education Policy Institute and London Economics have said, the Government have almost certainly underestimated how much debt they will have to write off because students are borrowing more and borrowing it for longer. Students, saddled with debt, will be worse off. The universities, cut, will be worse off. the taxpayer will be worse off. If it were not so serious, it would be comic. Let us look at the Government's central claim for their proposals.

Stephen Williams: rose-

John Denham: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because he was a higher education spokesman for his party.

Stephen Williams: Perhaps the shadow Secretary of State will enlighten us. When he was in the Cabinet-until May last year-and his successor Peter Mandelson proposed £1 billion of cuts from the higher education budget, did he support him or speak against the proposal?

John Denham: Being at the Dispatch Box is an interesting experience. [Hon. Members: "Answer the question."] I am going to answer the question. Half the time we are told, "You never had a plan for dealing with the deficit", and half the time we are told, "This is what you were going to do to deal with the deficit." The Government cannot have it both ways. As I have said on many occasions since the publication of the Browne review, the higher education budget would not have been unscathed under our deficit reduction programme, but it would not have been cut by 80%, and we would not have forced the fees up to £6,000 or £9,000.

Several hon. Members: rose -

John Denham: I want to make some progress on the issue of fairness, because I believe that it lies at the heart of many of the Government's arguments and of questions raised by Members in all parts of the House. The Government say that their proposal is fairer, and that it is better for low-income graduates. The Deputy Prime Minister has said:
	"The bottom 25% of earners will pay much less in their contributions to their university education than they do at the moment."-[ Official Report, 10 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 281.]
	The Prime Minister said yesterday:
	"With our new system, the poorest quarter of graduates will pay back less overall than they do currently."
	He also said:
	"The poorest will pay less, the richest will pay more."-[ Official Report, 8 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 281.]
	Over the last 24 hours, we have seen a parade of conscience-stricken Ministers saying that they just have to hang on to ministerial office-they just have to keep their red boxes and their cars-because this is really such a good deal for low-income graduates. They will all be better off, they say. When I heard the Prime Minister say yesterday that trebling fees would leave everyone better off, I thought, "I've heard that voice before somewhere." I could not place it at first, but last night I remembered. He is the bloke who does those advertisements on day-time television. You know the ones: "Have you got bad debts, credit card bills, county court judgments against you? Let us wrap them all into one simple payment and reduce your monthly payments." We all know what is wrong with those advertisements. People are charged higher rates of interest, and end up paying much more. That is exactly what the Prime Minister is proposing today.
	We all know what is wrong with the Prime Minister's claims. Let us now have a look at the Government's claims. Labour Members do not accept the Government's comparisons between their scheme and ours- [Interruption.] I mean their comparisons between their scheme and the current scheme. We think that they have chosen their assumptions to produce the figures that they want. Many people do not realise that the £15,000 threshold set in 2006 is the same in real terms as the £21,000 threshold that will start in 2016.
	Let us look at the Government's figures none the less. They say that a graduate in the bottom 10% will pay less, but how much less? What is the change that has led the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister and many other Ministers to say that the new system is so fair and so wonderful? According to the Government's own dodgy figures, the poorest 10% of graduates will pay an average of just £88 a year less-£1.60 a week. As the advertisement says, every little helps; but to see Members of Parliament, including Ministers, sell their consciences for just £88 a year is a tragedy.
	If the Government's real aim were to ease the pressure on the lowest-paid graduates, I would support it. The Government would have needed to make only minor changes to the current scheme to achieve that aim. However, nothing about the tiny benefit for the lowest-income graduates justifies doubling or trebling the debt of the vast majority of graduates. The IFS yesterday said that graduates from the 30% of poorest households would pay more. The heaviest burden will fall on graduates on average earnings; they will be the hardest hit in terms of how much of their earnings they will have to pay over the coming years. They will be hit harder than the graduates who go into the highest paid jobs. That is what the House of Commons Library says. That is what London Economics says. That is also what somebody to whom the House might wish to listen has said. Many Members will remember David Rendel, who for many years was the Member for Newbury and the higher education spokesman of the Liberal Democrats. In an e-mail I have received, he says the following to a number of his colleagues:
	"There are those who are claiming that the current proposals are progressive. But this is only the case if by "progressive" you mean that in any one year richer graduates will pay more than poorer graduates. For all the middle- and higher-earning graduates, over their lifetimes the more they earn the less they pay. Since a very large part of the justification of charging tuition fees is the higher lifetime earnings of graduates...a scheme in which graduates with large lifetime earnings pay less than graduates with comparatively small lifetime earnings cannot be regarded as either progressive or fair. (In this regard"-
	says the former higher education spokesman for the Liberal Democrats-
	"the new proposals, because they include a real-terms interest charge, are in fact more regressive than Labour's scheme!)."

Charlie Elphicke: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his honesty and candour in making a substantial spending commitment. Will he tell the House how much?

John Denham: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not been listening. I have been talking about the changes that were open to his party to make.
	It is because the average graduates going into typical jobs will get hit hardest compared with the highest-earning graduates, that we will need a fairer system of graduate contribution in the years to come.

Matthew Hancock: The right hon. Gentleman will not accept comparisons between the existing scheme and the Government's proposals, but will he accept the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies showing that the proposed system is more progressive than both the current scheme and the measures put forward in the Browne review?

John Denham: No, the IFS said graduates from the poorest 30% of households will pay more, and clearly at all other levels people will pay more than under the current scheme.

Several hon. Members: rose -

John Denham: I must make some progress.
	The "fairest" can be judged only by how much graduates pay. It must also be measured by the chance of becoming a graduate at all. Over the past few years the proportion of students from poorer backgrounds has steadily increased. There is much more to be done, and even more to be done on access to the most selective universities, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) has brilliantly shown this week.
	The progress we have made was not an accident, however; it took great efforts by the majority of universities, and we constructed the support, the routes and the ladders of opportunity for more and more of those bright, talented young people. All that has been kicked away.

Andrew Percy: I wanted to make the point the shadow Secretary of State he has just made when I tried to intervene on the Secretary of State's opening speech. Participation has been widening, but there is evidence that the poorest children are not going to the best universities, and that remains a problem. The concern for many of us on the Government Benches-or some of us, certainly-is that increasing fees even further will mean they will be even less likely to go to the best universities.

John Denham: I am very sorry that the Secretary of State did not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I think anybody who is showing the integrity and courage he is displaying in standing out and being critical of his party's policies deserves a hearing from his own side of the House. In what he says, the hon. Gentleman is in some very good company, as I will show in a moment.
	We created ladders of opportunity for young people from low-income backgrounds, but they are now being knocked over. The Minister for Universities and Science was recently asked a parliamentary question about the impact of Aimhigher. He said that
	"evidence from colleges, schools and academies showed that involvement in the activities provided through Aimhigher was associated with higher than predicted attainment at GCSE and greater confidence among learners that they were able to achieve."-[ Official Report, 29 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 590W.]
	I repeat:
	"greater confidence among learners that they were able to achieve."
	So what is the Minister doing? He is closing it down.

Angela Smith: Figures from the Library show that the Labour Government put £230 million into widening participation. Aimhigher has gone and the rest of that money has not yet been confirmed by the new Government. If it goes, will it not mean that the £150 million made available is in fact a cut in terms of widening participation?

John Denham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The scheme that was trumpeted at the weekend-and which I will talk about shortly-is dwarfed by the scale of the cuts and the uncertainty in the higher education budget. It is a loan that is dwarfed by the cut through the stopping, in about four weeks from now, of education maintenance allowance awards, which will stop for young people going to further education college this January.
	EMAs have, of course, never been just about getting young people to university. Many young people have been enabled to succeed in getting other qualifications, and in going into better jobs or into the vastly increased number of apprenticeships that we created. EMAs make a difference to those aiming for university, yet the Government are shutting them down.
	The whole House knows about the work of Sir Peter Lampl of the Sutton Trust. No one outside the education establishment has done more-or, indeed, been prepared to invest more of their own money-to campaign for fair access for students from low-income homes. He supported Labour's fees policy in 2004, but he says about the current proposals that
	"there is no doubt that such a significant increase in tuition costs would be a serious deterrent for those from non-privileged backgrounds. The double whammy of major cuts to state funding of universities and higher fees is inequitable and is sure to freeze social mobility. That is a bitter legacy for any politician."
	I hope Members will think about that, especially those final words.

Chuka Umunna: My constituency is in the fifth most deprived local authority area in London and the 19th most deprived in England. Participation rates among people going into higher education increased by over 80% between 1997 and last year. How can these proposals do other than bring that figure down and deter people from poor backgrounds from going to university? I have not had a single communication from a constituent telling me these proposals will make it more likely that they will go to university, but I have had many representations saying they will put them off going to university. Is that also the experience of my right hon. Friend?

John Denham: Well, it is the view of an organisation that has done more work on this issue than any other, and I think we should respect it.

Several hon. Members: rose -

John Denham: I will not take any further interventions. I have been speaking longer than I had intended, and I still have a couple of substantive points that I wish to make.
	At the weekend we got a bit of a breakthrough. The Government finally admitted that high fees will put off low-income students. They announced the national scholarship scheme and fee waivers for students on free school meals. The Government like this idea: it saves them money, because they do not have to make loans. It costs universities money instead, because they have to match funds. It is also a limited plan covering 18,000 out of the 2 million students in higher education. In case Members do not know this, I will point out that free school meals are generally available only to those families where no one works. What about the millions of working families who earn just a little above benefit levels, however? I look forward to the next election when Tory and Lib Dem MPs will have to explain why John Smith, whose parents do not work, will get £18,000 knocked off their fees, while Susan Jones in the same street, whose parents have always worked and paid their taxes, gets no help at all. I am glad the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is present on the Front Bench, because he should have a word with his colleagues about how this supports the idea that work should pay.
	This system will punish the very universities that have done the most to widen participation. The university of Bedfordshire, which took 120 students from free-school meal backgrounds in 2006-07, would have had to find £750,000 in match funding, whereas Cambridge, which took just 20, would have had to find only £120,000. Where is the sense in punishing success and rewarding failure? The IFS says that it
	"provides a financial incentive for universities...to turn away students from poorer backgrounds."
	It does not make sense.
	All the signs suggest a Government policy in disarray. There is no White Paper, and every day the Government try to respond to the latest criticism. Last week, we showed that two thirds of part timers would not benefit from their scheme, so they had to rush out a minor change yesterday. Last week, under pressure from me, the Business Secretary said he would write to the Office for Fair Access to give guidance about fair access and he has, but it was an empty document. Let me address one point: the House has been told that universities might charge £9,000 in "exceptional circumstances", but nowhere in the guidance document that has been issued does the term "exceptional circumstances" appear. The Business Secretary does not tell the director of OFFA to limit the highest fees to exceptional circumstances or ask him to tell us what exceptional circumstances are. The truth is that he came to the House making a fine promise about the £9,000 and the exceptional circumstances but he has done nothing to bring that about in practice because he knows he will not be able to enforce it. That is not the right way to handle the House.
	If I had more time, I would speak about the objections of the British Medical Association, the teaching organisations and the fact that the universities that train teachers have no idea how they will be funded. Let me end by saying a few words to those Ministers and Back Benchers who are struggling, even now, to reconcile party loyalty with a desire to do the right thing and support future students and our universities. [ Interruption. ] [ Laughter . ]

Chris Ruane: They are not laughing in the Public Gallery.

John Denham: Millions of parents, students and future students will be watching the debate and they will wonder why it is such a laughing matter for right hon. and hon. Members.
	Let me say a few words to those who are wrestling with this issue. It would be crass to compare the two issues, but I once resigned on a point of principle when I was a Minister. I say to Ministers and Back Benchers who are considering their positions today, "I know what you are going through. It is hard to stand aside from friends and colleagues with whom you've shared many a battle, but after you've done it, you realise it wasn't half as bad as you thought it would be. The self respect you gain far outweighs any temporary loss of position, power or income." The truth is that in any generous political party-mine is not the only generous political party in the House-there is usually a way back. This decision matters so much to so many people that I say to hon. Members, "If you don't believe in it, vote against it."

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: I have imposed a six-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions with immediate effect.

Ian Murray: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you give the House some guidance? The Business Secretary has come to the Dispatch Box to tell us how progressive and fair the system that the Government are imposing on thousands of students across the country is, but he has recently been quoted in a Liberal Democrat leaflet that has gone out in Scotland as saying not only that it is akin to the poll tax but that it is incredibly unfair-

Mr Speaker: Order. I have listened to the first two or three sentences of the hon. Gentleman's attempted point of order, but I am afraid that it is not a point of order. He has put his concern on the record. I appeal to hon. Members to have regard for each other's interests. I want to accommodate as many Members as possible, starting with Mr David Evennett.

David Evennett: I am very grateful for the opportunity to participate in this important debate. As the shadow Minister with responsibility for higher and further education when in opposition, I strongly supported setting up the Browne review of student finance. The review, which was published earlier this year, was very thorough and from it the Government have, after considerable consideration, come forward with their plans.
	I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary on his moderate and constructive speech and on the constructive and progressive decisions that he has taken. The proposals are much more progressive than the current system or any that the Opposition support. We all know that this is a difficult and emotional issue, and it has been made more so by the legacy of the previous Labour Government, who saddled us with huge economic and financial problems. If they had managed our public finances better, we would not have so many grave problems now.
	I was very disappointed by the speech of the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), which lacked any alternative or constructive policies and was vague and waffling on Labour policies. It is all very well for him to come here and wring his hands, but his Government were the ones who caused all the problems.
	Three vital criteria should always be considered in relation to these matters. The first is, of course, finance and whether students will be put off going to university because they come from a disadvantaged household or a deprived area, or because they are concerned about future debt.

Edward Leigh: It is quite right that we should help people on low incomes, but will my hon. Friend say a word about the many people whom we represent who are in work and have moderate incomes? They also need help and must not be disadvantaged. Middle-income Britain cannot go on paying for this.

David Evennett: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Middle England will be looked on favourably because we want to get more students into university who have the ability, talent and determination to go there.

Several hon. Members: rose -

David Evennett: I shall not give way for the moment as I should like to make some progress.
	Assistance must be given to those who are most disadvantaged, and I think that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary sorted that out in his speech and his proposals.
	The second criterion is that students need an improvement in the student experience if fees are to go up. They should get more tutorials, lectures, careers advice and so on. Currently, student experience is very varied; many have complained to me about the poor service they have received at university. There has to be an improvement in the quality of student experience-students want value for money.  [ Interruption. ] I shall not take any notice of sedentary comments from Opposition Members. Perhaps they should listen. They did not listen when the Secretary of State was speaking; perhaps they would have learned something if they had.
	Thirdly, universities need to adapt by creating more part-time courses, modules and, perhaps, two-year courses. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend is looking at assistance for students on part-time courses, who have been neglected in the past. The needs of our country should be paramount and the universities have to change to meet the challenges of today, the demands of students and the needs of our country. We are fortunate to have a world-class university system, but it needs to be maintained in the face of world competition, especially in the far east and America. We need the best students to come to our country, and from within it, and go to our universities to advance themselves and the interests of our country. The proposals deal with the three vital criteria that I have set out as being necessary to make the system work, be progressive and make our country's future a success.
	I have always been against a graduate tax-an idea that the Opposition now seem to be tinkering with. Browne considered it in his review but decided that it was not a good idea. I am against it because money would go straight from the graduate to the Treasury, whereas under our graduate contribution scheme, money will go directly to universities and give them an independent source of income free from Government interference. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) has not really explained the policy, but with a graduate tax, graduates would pay when they reached the taxable threshold, whereas our system proposes that they should pay only when they start earning more than £21,000. That is positive.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that a graduate tax would act as a massive incentive for our brightest and best graduates to leave this country and pay tax elsewhere?

David Evennett: My hon. Friend makes the absolute point, outlining one of the many reasons why it would be a terrible mistake to go along that route. The Opposition are always going backwards, and this is an example of their doing so yet again. Time is short in this debate, because so many hon. Members wish to participate, but I must say that the disadvantages of the graduate tax are many and varied, and we should cast it into the dustbin, as the Government have done.
	Members on both sides of the House must accept that things need to change. We do not like change sometimes, but it is necessary and this is an example of its importance -[Interruption.] But progress is not being made. Many disadvantaged children in London are not getting into university under the current system, and we need to change that. We want to give them the opportunity to do so. The new system has to be fairer to ensure that those young people have opportunities to go to the colleges and universities, as we want them to do.
	I am a passionate supporter of more part-time and foundation degrees, and I am encouraged by the approach taken by the Open university. I recently discussed this with its vice-chancellor, Martin Bean, and learned of his enthusiasm and commitment to providing a completely different student experience. We welcome that, because flexibility and an innovative approach is what we need. That is what these proposals are about, and it will not do for Opposition Front Benchers just to waffle vaguely on the key issues. The need for change is here, we have to look forward and we have to be progressive. That is what we are looking for. We want to ensure that there is fair access for people. That is what the Government believe in; we believe in opportunities for the future.
	The Government accept the broad principles of the Browne review, with some amendments to make it more acceptable to the vast majority of young people who want to go into higher education. This reform package will offer more support to those on lower incomes, and will put higher education funding on a fairer and sustainable footing. It will be fair to students, taxpayers and universities-we must not forget that all those people have an interest and are involved. The Government's proposals go a long way to achieving all that, because they are progressive and will aid social mobility.  [Interruption.] Opposition Members make sedentary comments, but they do not want to listen. They failed to get social mobility in the 13 years that they were in government; we have put forward more policies in the past five or six months to do more than they did in 13 years. Our aim must be to create a stable future for higher education, and to encourage a genuine market that will provide academic excellence and reinforce the international success of British universities. That is what we are about in this House and this measure today, and I commend it to everybody.

David Blunkett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) on an excellent speech, in contrast to what we have just heard from the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett).
	May I bring the House back to the reasons why we changed the funding system for higher education in 1997-98? As my right hon. Friend said, there had been a 36% drop in funding per student over the previous eight years. There had also been an eight-year cap on the expansion of higher education, denying literally millions of young people the opportunity of higher education over that decade. We introduced a new system that almost immediately raised £1 billion-that was not instead of the resources that were already going in, but in addition to those-so that tens of thousands and then hundreds of thousands of young people with the qualifications to be able to enter higher education were able to do so. We introduced a contingent repayment system for the flat-rate loan for maintenance. We introduced a system of bursaries for maintenance called "opportunity bursaries" and a system in relation to the new fees that were being charged. It resulted not in 18,000 young people being exempt from the fee for one year or a maximum of two years, but in more than 40% of all young undergraduates being exempt from the fee and a further 30% having the fee in partial remittance. In other words, this was contingent on the income of the family, it took into account the ability to pay and it introduced a much fairer repayment system. All of it was designed to expand opportunity, to develop courses within the universities and, as my right hon. Friend said, to provide the opportunity to make our country the second destination in the world for students across the globe.
	I wish briefly to deal with social mobility. I know more about social mobility than most, because my whole life has been an example of it, from when I was on day release and attending evening classes to when I took the opportunity to get to university as a mature student. I am telling this House and, in particular, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg)- if he were here-that he knows nothing about social mobility. The Government are removing the education maintenance allowance from constituencies such as mine, which ranks third lowest in Britain on past access to higher education; removing the child trust fund, which would have given young people a nest egg at the age of 18 and provided them with the incentive to go on and the funds to be able to repay loans; removing the Aimhigher scheme; and rolling in the so-called pupil premium by cutting 2.25% from the schools budget and then giving it back in something that is a sop to the Liberal Democrats, but which will actually be perverse in its impact across the country. Introducing a £9,000 a year fee on top of cuts in youth and careers services across the country is a deliberate, consistent and unfair attack on young people in our country and their future. That is why it should be rejected. It is not fair to young people and their families, it is not fair to universities, and it is not fair to our country and the future of Britain in a knowledge economy.
	But this proposal is not necessary either because, as my right hon. Friend mentioned and as is clearly spelt out by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the borrowing that will be required to fund the loans in the first place will actually outstrip any gain that might have been made. Borrowing of £4.1 billion this year will increase to £10.7 billion in 2015-16, so far from helping us to tackle the deficit this adds to it. In other words, we are making the deficit worse in the period when we are supposed to be reducing it. If the Government are right and the economy recovers-God willing, it will-we will be able to sustain the £3 billion that is being removed from teaching, rather than remove it.

Dan Byles: First, I wish to point out that many Government Members understand social mobility. I am the first member of my family to stay at school beyond 16 and to go to university. What would the right hon. Gentleman say to the low-income non-graduate workers in my constituency who ask me why the lion's share of the payment for degrees comes from their taxes to enable others to earn more money than they could ever hope to earn? Does he not accept that this is not as clear-cut and black and white as he is saying, and that it involves a very difficult balance between taxpayers and students?

David Blunkett: I recall arguing in 1997 that we should ensure that there is a fair balance; I used to use the analogy of those getting up at six in the morning to do a cleaning job. I know slightly more about that than the hon. Gentleman because many of my constituents do exactly that for a living. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the perverseness of what is being introduced now will discourage people from going into work, from seeking promotion in work and from wanting their children to go to university in the first place.

Dan Byles: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Blunkett: No, I will not. I pray in aid the Institute for Fiscal Studies, because when it discussed this scheme it said that the system generates perverse incentives. For example, the national scholarship fund provides a financial incentive for universities to reject students when they charge more than £6,000. In other words, the higher-level universities will end up rejecting students from poorer backgrounds-the exact opposite of what has been argued this afternoon. The position is very clear: the scheme is designed to change the architecture of higher education in this country. It is ideologically based, not logically based- [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. Stop the clock. Point of order, Mr Dan Byles.

Dan Byles: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to make such a personal remark, suggesting that I might not understand how difficult it is to get up early to go to work? When I was a soldier, I used to get up considerably before 6 am to serve my country.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. The short answer to his question is, yes, it is a matter of debate and, however irritated he might feel, that was not a point of order. We must conduct the debate in an orderly way.

David Blunkett: The answer is very simple. More of my constituents and those who visit my advice surgery understand those issues than do those of Government Members. That is a simple fact, and that is why this is a value-laden, ideological issue, not one of rationality, not one of deficit-reduction-

Mr Speaker: Order. We must now move on to the next speech.

Greg Mulholland: I rise to speak in a debate in which I do not want to speak. I do not believe that this debate should be happening today, and I do not believe that it should be happening in the way that it is. It is only seven months since the general election and the Government were formed; it is less than two months since we saw the Browne report for the first time, and it is a month-a month-since the Government announced their proposals on higher education. Yet, today, we are being forced to hold the significant vote, without considering the other proposals, with a mere five-hour debate.
	I make it clear that I am a Government Back Bencher. I support the coalition Government and I support what they are doing. I also support, understand and accept that both parties and MPs in the coalition have to compromise, but let me tell you, Mr Speaker, being asked to vote to increase fees up to £9,000 is not a compromise. It is not something that Liberal Democrat Back Benchers or even many Conservative Back Benchers should have been asked to consider.
	As you and the House will know, Mr Speaker, I tabled an amendment, which unfortunately was not successful. It was tabled in my name, that of the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and those of Members from all parts of the House. That was the final attempt to get the Government to listen, because the simple reality is that, even if their proposals are the best way forward for higher education, and I do not believe that they are, the Government have to accept that they simply have not convinced people of that, not only on the Liberal Democrat Benches, but far more importantly among the wider public and, crucially, future students and their families.

Richard Graham: What does my hon. Friend consider to be a reasonable percentage of time to spend on this debate relative to the amount of time given by the previous Government to the debate about whether this country should go to war with Iraq?

Greg Mulholland: All I say to the hon. Gentleman is that sometimes Governments are wrong, and sometimes one needs to have the courage to say so. I am doing that today.

John Pugh: Summarising this debate so far, one has to accept that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), though very wise, does not know for certain that he is right, and that the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), though equally wise, does not know for certain that he is right. Does not the House need an opportunity to assess the results of whatever policy we adopt today, and not do something that is purely irreversible?

Greg Mulholland: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There simply has not been an adequate evaluation to allay the very real concerns out there.
	I am going to talk about the pledge. I did not sign just one pledge, I actually signed two: the National Union of Students pledge in this very House, and the Leeds university union pledge at the university. I do not regret signing either, but that is not the sole or, even, most important reason why I shall vote against the Government today. I shall vote against the Government today, because I simply cannot accept that fees of up to £9,000 are the fairest and most sustainable way of funding higher education.
	Before I became a Member, I opposed the Labour Government introducing fees in the first place, and I opposed the Labour Government introducing top-up fees. I said at the time, as did many hon. Members including courageous Labour Back Benchers, "This will lead one day to huge increases in fees and become a never-ending path." Sadly, that has been shown to be absolutely correct.

Anne Main: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Greg Mulholland: I will not give way, I am afraid, because I have taken my two interventions and the hon. Lady will have the chance to intervene on other people. I do apologise
	We do need to look at higher education funding, but we must look at it as a whole, within the education system and with apprenticeships and further education. Rushing through this single vote today will do none of that. On the current proposals, I have said all along, and look to the Minister for Universities and Science, my right hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Willetts) as I say it now, that there are indeed many progressive things in the proposals. The levels at which graduates will have to make a contribution, the measures for part-time students and the £21,000 threshold are very welcome.
	I fully acknowledge all those things, but we need to debunk a myth. All those positive things, which are in the proposals and are progressive in terms of the graduate contribution, do not need to be tied to a huge increase in fees. That is simply a non sequitur. It is simply not true to say, "You cannot have one without the other," and that is the crucial flaw in the Government's argument today.
	The Secretary of State knows, and we all know, that there is much confusion about the proposals, but is that not another reason to have more time for the Government to try to convince people? He and all Ministers who support the proposals today have to accept that they have not won the argument, and rushing things through, given the concern and anxiety about how it has been done without proper parliamentary scrutiny, is simply a recipe for bad policy.
	The idea is that, when we finally get to the proposals in the White Paper, they will deal with the deficit, but that is questionable. In the proposals to be put before the House in the White Paper in the new year, huge amounts of money will go from the Treasury to the universities, but the difference is that those figures will have been moved from expenditure and put into a different column. That is the reality.
	The Higher Education Policy Institute report states that
	"the proposals will increase public expenditure through this parliament and into the next",
	and that
	"it is as likely that in the long term the government's proposals will cost more than they will save."
	It is smoke and mirrors, so I am afraid that the argument to increase fees to £9,000, albeit backed by progressive elements, is certainly not enough to persuade me. It is not enough to persuade many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues or, indeed, colleagues and friends from our coalition partner.
	So, I say one last time, having done so over the past week, that it is not too late. There needs to be a re-think and a proper review of how we come up with the best system for higher and, indeed, all post-18 education. That should be done properly. It should not be rushed through; it should be done with proper parliamentary scrutiny.
	To Liberal Democrat colleagues who are listening to the argument and say that we need to get this issue out of the way and get the pain over with, I say, this will not finish with today's vote, because there will be amendments to reverse the proposal when we do reach the White Paper.
	I say to this House and I say to colleagues, for the sake of the Liberal Democrats, for the sake of this Government, for the sake of Parliament, please vote against these proposals tonight.

Barry Sheerman: I stand here with some trepidation in the sense that, in 2004, I made a speech in a similar debate and many of my colleagues howled at me and did not agree with much that I said. In those days, my Committee-the Select Committee on Education-had carried out an inquiry into top-up fees and had come out in favour of them. Of course, the majority was only five. I think that Select Committee report did have some influence.
	I do not regret either the Select Committee report or my vote that day. However, I want to take us back briefly, so that we can try to learn something from history. We had a debate then because, with all-party agreement, we had set up the Dearing report. I have to say that Dearing was a far better choice to do such a report than Lord Browne, who produced the more recent one. The Dearing report essentially argued that if we want to move from an elite system of higher education to a mass system, somebody has to pay. In his view, the cost should be fairly distributed within society between the taxpayer, the individual who benefits and employers. That was Dearing's opinion.
	We must all confront the fact that what we are talking about today and have discussed over past years is how to get that balance right. I do not think that anyone would want to go back to the days when the state paid everything or have a situation in which the student pays everything. I have to say, in light of the Secretary of State's remarks, that employers have never been very willing to pay their share. Since 2004, we have developed a system in which there is a fair balance. However, I must remind the House that we-including my dear friend the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), the former Secretary of State for Education and Skills-did not get it entirely right. We rushed the response to Dearing and got it wrong. We were rightly criticised for that, but we did get it right over time. That is why we had a second reaction and had to go for top-up fees-variable fees. That is when we got it right and I want to learn the lesson from that.
	Policy made speedily and on the hoof is not good policy. I admire the speech made by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). This piece of legislation is being rushed through in a way that is a disgrace to parliamentary procedure, to this House and to higher education. Are we the best in the world at automobile production? I do not think we are. Are we the finest in banking? I do not think we are. We could list the sectors in which we are not world class, but we are clearly world class when it comes to higher education.

Caroline Lucas: The hon. Gentleman rightly spoke about the importance of employers paying their contribution towards higher education. Does he therefore support the University and College Union's proposal for a business education tax that would essentially be a corporation tax on the 4% biggest companies that benefit directly from graduates? That would generate £3.9 billion for higher education and would mean that we could scrap tuition fees altogether.

Barry Sheerman: I listened very carefully to that. It is an interesting idea. The timetable that the Government have put on this procedure means that we will not be able to consider serious ideas such as that.
	I have some reservations about a graduate tax. The Select Committee has considered a graduate tax, as have other people, but there are some formidable difficulties with it. That is not to say that a graduate tax is impossible, but I can honestly say that we have not had time to develop it fully. That is true. In the same way, the proposals on which we will be voting today have not been thought through or mulled over, and the consequences of them have not been considered.
	Someone asked what procedure we would like there to be. We have a procedure, which involves introducing a piece of legislation, publishing a Green Paper and discussing the proposals. When the Government have firmed up their ideas, a White Paper is published. During that process, there is discussion with the people who work in universities, who study in universities and who do wonderful research in our universities. There is actually discussion with the community. Can hon. Members imagine not talking to people in any other sectors on which we legislate?

Andrew Bridgen: I thought we just did talk to the electorate. We had a general election and the hon. Gentleman's party lost.

Barry Sheerman: We tend to get passionate in debates on such things. In fact nobody won the election. The Conservative party did not win the election because it did not get a majority. I was reflecting on that matter. When I used to teach politics in a university, I can remember many people arguing that it would be wonderful to have a coalition because it would temper the debate. People would not rush into daft policy because the minority party would say, "Hold your horses. We're not sure of this. Let's think carefully, let's do research and let's talk to the people in the sector." That is what we thought a coalition Government might do. I do not know if I was ever really persuaded of what a coalition would do. I believe that coalition Government leads to weak leadership, weak Government and some people getting their way by trampling on democracy. The higher education sector in this country is the best in the world. I think it is better than in America. The US might get more international students but, pound for pound, professor for professor, student for student, we have the best system in the world.

Charlie Elphicke: The hon. Gentleman is making a very principled speech. Does he agree that if the election had been won by the Labour party, the chances are that it would have implemented the Browne review?

Barry Sheerman: I do not believe that at all. Let me be straight with the hon. Gentleman. I believe that there is a great deal of strength in the Browne report. It refers to a deferred payment system, which is not a bad system. There are some good elements in the report. I like the section on part-time students and the fact that we will no longer pay a massive interest subsidy to people who do not need it in terms of the zero interest rate. There are some good things in Browne. If we could have had a conversation about the matter, we might, for once, have got some all-party agreement on the side of higher education, which is absolutely central to the future wealth, progress and happiness of this country-happiness is in favour at the moment, is it not?
	If we pass the legislation, we will make some mistakes today that will punish people in this country, demoralise higher education and put us down the league in terms of our university sector. I hope that hon. Members vote against the measure tonight.

Ben Gummer: I am grateful for the contribution of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) because he gave the lie to the Opposition's argument. There is a great deal of agreement between the two sides, and I shall turn to that in a moment.
	What worries me most is that the entire tenor of the debate is doing more to put off aspirant students than anything contained in the proposals. Government Members and those on the Opposition Benches who had the opportunity to go to university are, I am sure, deeply conscious of the privilege that we have enjoyed. Those of us who have but one or two generations of university attendants in our families are also aware of the advantages we have received as a result of that. To divide the debate artificially along the lines of those who are in favour of social mobility and those who are not is to misunderstand what we are trying to do.
	I take my hat off to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) whose passion for social mobility is undeniable. However, he had 13 years in which he played a long and influential role in a Government under whom social mobility went backwards. The gap between rich and poor widened. I do not doubt the passion and integrity of Labour Members who wish to see social mobility increase-that is the case among Government Members-but they have had their opportunity and it did not work, and we must try again.

Liz Kendall: The latest evidence on social mobility is based on a comparison between those born in 1958 and those born in 1970. Does the hon. Gentleman think it is right to say that people who were 27 years old when the previous Government were elected should be blamed for that?

Ben Gummer: I am afraid that I do not get the full gist of the hon. Lady's intervention. All I know is that every single study that has been done on social mobility and the gap between rich and poor under the previous Government has shown a slowing of social mobility and a widening of the gap.

Andrew Bridgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ben Gummer: I will take one more intervention.

Andrew Bridgen: The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) made an impassioned speech about social mobility, claiming that he knew more about it than anyone else. Perhaps he does, because he knows that social mobility runs in both directions given his extremely chequered history in office.

Ben Gummer: I happen to be one of the Government Members who admires the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough for the forthright way in which he stuck up for his principles in the previous Government. His passion is shared on both sides of the House, and I hope that we can contribute to the debate in that manner.
	To my mind, the question is threefold. First, how do we widen and maintain access to higher education and participation across the spectrum? Secondly, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield said, how do we maintain and increase funding for our excellent universities? Thirdly, how do we do this within the boundary of the deficit? That has been forgotten by Labour Members and the fact is that if we do not deal with the deficit now, there will not be an economy and there will be no jobs into which graduates can go. There is no point, therefore, in constructing a policy that does not create jobs at the end of the road.
	I address this issue critically and with some scepticism because some years ago I was in favour of free tuition. I have talked to the students in my constituency and I have talked to those at the new university in my constituency, and I have had very productive discussions with both groups. I pay tribute to those at the students union of university campus Suffolk, who have taken a very constructive approach. They understand the difficulty that the country is in, and understand also that students must make a contribution of some degree. They and I, and many Government Members and Labour Members, agree that whatever scheme comes in must ensure that access is widened. That is the litmus test. Within that, we must also ensure that funding is maintained for universities. The proposals put forward at the weekend will mean that the 25% of poorest students will do better under this system than under the current one, as was confirmed this morning by the IFS in a radio interview on the "Today" programme. That is the positive effect on social mobility, and it therefore ticks that box.
	What, then, of university funding? University campus Suffolk is about 18 months or two years old. It is one of the newest higher education institutions in the country. It is a fantastic institution. For one that is still so young, it is already building several excellent areas of research capability, especially in regenerative medicine. I pay tribute to the provost, Mike Sacks, who is an inspirational man. I had a long discussion with him and, for me, the continuation of university campus Suffolk is critical to my voting in favour of these proposals; if that will not be the case, I cannot support them. I raised that point with him the other day and he felt that the degree of Government funding should be slightly more. However, on the basis of what he has been told and the comprehensive spending review, he said, "I am confident as I can be that we can move forward with our plans and ambitions under the proposed scheme." I therefore feel confident, apropos the institution in my constituency, that I can support these proposals, because the leaders of the university have the ability to do the extraordinary things that they plan with the scheme that is on the table.
	I have several questions for the Minister, to which I hope he will reply at some point. I have an issue about how foundation courses will be dealt with. I should like to understand about long courses, not only those in medicine but those such as architecture where it might be problematic for small practices to pay students' fees in later years. We need a bit more clarity about visas for international students so that international income can be guaranteed. The data and transparency side of the deal must be fleshed out a bit so that students can understand what they are getting into.
	I have one final question, and that is about an alternative. Many Government Members, while listening to these debates, have asked to see what alternative there is. Some alternatives have been put forward by the NUS. Its alternative seems to change every few weeks, but at least it has one. It seems that the Leader of the Opposition also understood that there had to be an alternative. He said on 29 June:
	"You're right to point out the practical issues... and that is why I want to consult widely before publishing detailed plans later this year."
	We now have a few weeks left before the end of this year, and I have not seen a detailed plan. For those coalition colleagues who are having difficulty with this proposal, I understand their problem in many ways, because there is no alternative for them to consult. Her Majesty's Opposition have provided nothing for them to look at. In the absence of that, we must look at the plans that have been given.
	Let me offer some counterfactuals. Do we cut university funding and not increase fees? If we put student fees up only to £5,000, which was one option mooted by Labour Members, Universities UK suggests that student numbers would go down by 25%. Alternatively, do we go for a graduate tax? The Leader of the Opposition has suggested that a graduate tax would appear to be so like a student loan system that it is hard to understand the difference between the two.

Alasdair McDonnell: Because time is worryingly short, given the importance of what is being discussed and the fact that so many Members wish to contribute, I will keep my remarks as brief as possible. Although I have much to say, I hope to accommodate others as best I can.
	We need only look outside our windows, not just today but over the past few weeks, to see the strength of feeling that has been generated by this issue. I would like to offer my support to those students, many of whom are from my own constituency, who have come here to make a peaceful and reasonable protest. I have substantial sympathy for the case made by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) about a serious conversation and a greater degree of consensus on the issue.
	For me, the whole future of the high-tech, high-value-added economy to which we all subscribe depends very much on equality and access to third-level education. The Government have chosen-I reiterate the word "chosen"-to subject students who wish to study in England to the highest fees in the western world outside the United States. In my brief comments, I want to draw attention to how much-or should I say, how little?-consideration has been given to the impact that these measures will have on Northern Ireland, students from Northern Ireland, and indeed the devolved regions and students from those places as well. A large number of students from Northern Ireland, particularly from my own constituency, undertake their studies at universities in England and will therefore be subject to the higher fees. Indeed, in Northern Ireland nearly a third of our students move outside Northern Ireland; in my constituency, that percentage is even higher. As such, there is likely to be a dramatic increase in the cost to the Northern Ireland Executive-it has been placed at close to £30 million -in order to meet the generated costs.

Pete Wishart: Does the hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that this Government have given absolutely no consideration to the impact that this has on the devolved nations, including Scotland? Will he join me in trying to encourage the Government to think as much as possible about what these plans will do to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales? So far they have given that no thought whatsoever.

Alasdair McDonnell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is difficult for those of us who come here attempting to encourage devolution and work to create a bridge between the devolved Governments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales and the Government here in this House, because this action in many ways erodes and undermines the devolution that has taken place.
	That is compounded by the problems with the Barnett formula and the implications for Barnett formulation. The consequential cuts to university teaching budgets have already been passed on to the Executive, so we are being hit twice in advance of any changes that might be made to student fee arrangements. We need considerable clarity on the new arithmetic that is being used in Barnett formulation if we are to understand the knock-on effects of the proposals.
	Why should the Northern Ireland Executive face the penalisation of students through the student funding proposals, while their budget is already being penalised through the Barnett formula? We are forced to tread the nearly impossible path of protecting our students who wish to study at universities in England, while providing the funding that is necessary to sustain the universities in Northern Ireland. All too often, the argument is framed only in terms of the impact of the measures on England, rather than in the context of the devolved nations.
	Thanks to Social Democratic and Labour party colleagues who have served in the Northern Ireland Assembly and as Ministers in previous Northern Ireland Executives, there has been since devolution a reduction in the number of people who pay fees. We reduced the amount of money that people had to pay and we were the first to bring back student grants to widen access for those on the margins and those who are impoverished in our society. That shows that progressive elements can be injected into the existing system without having to triple tuition fees or radically alter the system.
	The measures proposed by the coalition Government will place enormous pressure on universities in Northern Ireland to raise their fees to match the fees in England.

Jim Shannon: I understand that the proportion of students from Northern Ireland who go across the water is up to a third. There will be an impact on the Northern Ireland Assembly and on its budget. There will be an impact on moneys that are already set aside, and we have made no allowance for that.

Alasdair McDonnell: The hon. Gentleman endorses exactly the point that I was making-we will be hit both ways. My party has campaigned ardently to protect the cap on fees for Northern Ireland universities, but we would be naive to ignore these measures. When fees go up in English universities, it will have a knock-on effect and fees will inevitably go up for Queen's university and the university of Ulster.
	As I am sure you will have read from between the lines of what I am saying, Mr Speaker, we do not believe that the measures are the right way to go about managing third-level education. We are not persuaded that they will improve access to higher education, particularly for those on the margins. We must oppose the measures, because we do not know what the fallout for Northern Ireland will be. We have set third-level education as a matter of the highest priority. We believe that the high-tech, high value-added economy that we want to see built in Northern Ireland can be delivered only through a high standard of third-level education that is accessible to all. Again, I repeat that it should be accessible, in particular, to bright young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, who struggle already to enter third-level education-these measures will further cut off such people.
	The Government will cut spending on higher education and place the burden of payment on future generations of students, who, as they begin their careers, will face mountainous debts that they will spend much of their lives clearing. I was once a medical student, but I cannot imagine any medical student or student of architecture-as the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) suggested-now emerging from university with debts of less than £100,000.
	There is also the problem that educational maintenance allowance has been withdrawn. That will massively compound the crisis for many of our poorest potential students, who may forgo the option because the threat of debt is much too high. The proposed increases to student fees run counter to our vision for third-level education and we will therefore oppose the proposals today.

Andrew Percy: This has not been the easiest of weeks, as I have wrestled with what is, to me, an incredibly important issue. We are all the sum of our experiences and our backgrounds. I say to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) that it was outrageous to suggest that Members on the Government Benches do not understand people from ordinary backgrounds. I come from an ordinary background, as do many Government Members. I do not think that he enhanced the debate in the slightest.
	I would prefer not to be making this speech on this issue, because I am a huge supporter of the coalition. I thought that the coalition was the right way to move forward and it has tackled some difficult issues with great speed and in the correct way. However, on this issue, the Government are wrong. I shall explain the particular issues that I have in a moment.
	First, I will say something of my colleagues on the Government Benches who will vote in favour of the measures. Some of the criticism levelled at the people who support the measures has been incredibly unfair. The people who support the measures are not cruel or elitist, but have their own views and have come to their own hard-headed decision. They may think in different terms from me, but I do not like the way in which the debate has become polarised. I am sure that all hon. Members condemn the violence that has been associated with this issue.
	I speak from my own experiences as a former schoolteacher, which I have mentioned on many occasions, and as the first person in my family to attend university-I know that I am not unique in that among hon. Members. I went to university on a full grant with all my tuition paid, shortly before tuition fees were introduced. I can only think about the impact that the proposed fees would have had on me and my family when I was growing up. Would my parents have encouraged me to attend university, had they thought I would come away with debts of £40,000 or £50,000? I do not think so. Similarly, many of the students whom I taught in deprived schools in Hull wanted to go to university, but when I encouraged them to do so, the response was often, "My dad says that we can't afford to go to university." That was after fees were introduced.
	Since fees were introduced, the evidence has shown that although there has been widening participation, students from some backgrounds are not attending the best universities, as I said to the shadow Secretary of State. They choose where to attend based on money and finances, rather than on what is best for them. They often choose to stay at home.

Anne Main: My hon. Friend is giving a very sensitive speech and I sympathise hugely. Indeed, I marched against student fees in 2004, because they opened a Pandora's box. He is right that the fairest thing is not to deter people with up-front fees, but to have pay-later graduate contributions. Labour let that out of the box, and there is no going back.

Andrew Percy: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. There is, of course, a choice to be made, and Governments can make whatever choices they want to make on important issues such as this. However, I do not think that the case has been made for this proposal, and I shall go on to say a little about that in a moment.
	I have a particular issue with the loss of funding to the arts and humanities. It is wrong for the Government to say that there is no value to the state in the arts and humanities. We lead the world in research in the arts and humanities, and the loss of funding in its entirety for those who want to pursue degrees in those subjects certainly does not sit well with me.
	I accept that the mechanism that the Government are proposing to put in place could not be much more progressive. I believe that it is fair, and that it will protect the poorest students. However, I have made the point to Ministers on several occasions over the past few days that we have not won the argument on that basis. Many of the choices that young people make about higher education are based on perception, and there is a perception out there that this measure will lead to huge debts of £40,000 to £50,000 at least. We have not won the argument relating to that perception.

Margot James: My hon. Friend is making some good points, but does he accept that one third of students will be better off? The progressive nature of the proposal means that some students will never pay off their debt unless their earnings take them into the higher-rate tax band. Surely that is an argument against what he has been saying.

Andrew Percy: A number of hon. Members have made that very point today, and I accept that the principle of tripling fees-in many cases, they will go up not to £6,000 but to £7,000, £8,000 or £9,000-means that the system is progressive. My concern is that we have not had a proper debate. We have not had time to consider the options and we have not had time to have a sensible, grown-up debate-

Richard Graham: rose -

Andrew Percy: I am not going to give way again, as I have only three minutes left and other Members wish to speak in this important debate.
	My major concern is that, in the public's mind, we have not made the case for trebling tuition fees. I also have a huge concern about where our young people are going to end up going to university. Everyone knows that this is not just about tuition fees; we also have to take into account living costs. Speaking from personal experience, I was at university on a full grant and had no tuition fees to pay, but I left with considerable additional debts on my credit cards and so on. It is just the same for students today, and that is going to continue. When we look at students' debt issues, we need to take into account not only tuition fees but living costs and the other debts that students inevitably rack up while they are at university.

Christopher Pincher: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Percy: I am not going to give way, because a lot of Members want to contribute to the debate.
	I have struggled with this issue, as I hope Members will understand from my speech. I urge the Government to row back a little bit, to think again, to delay this decision today and to give proper, grown-up, sensible consideration to all the possible alternatives. I accept that the Opposition might well have found themselves in exactly the same position, and that they have not offered a credible alternative to this proposal. I am in a strange position, as I have said to my local paper many times over the last couple of days, because I do not have a credible alternative to it either. Perhaps I am therefore making an emotional decision rather than a hard-headed one, but I urge the Government to think again and to come back to the issue next year, in six months' time, when we have had a proper conversation about it. We get to do this only once, and if we cede the principle of £9,000 tuition fees, I will be deeply concerned about the message it will send to people out there. I need no more proof than the e-mail I received this week from one of my constituents, Cathy from Burton-upon-Stather. I am sure that she and her son will be supported, but the message that has gone out because of the debate on this issue is that she will not be able to afford to send her child to university. I can only wrestle with my conscience and stick to what I believe, and my view is that the Government have not made their case. I will not be supporting the proposal this evening.

Emily Thornberry: I want to start by dealing with the main issue, before moving on to give the Liberal Democrats some advice.
	The main issue is that the Conservatives say that there is no choice: they have to raise fees to make up the funding shortfall. There is a choice, however. They could choose not to cut the funding budget by 80%, and they could choose not to privatise university teaching. Perhaps this proposal is what one might expect from the Conservatives, but students and their parents trusted the Liberal Democrats when they voted for them, and they did not expect this. They believed Liberal Democrats when they said that they would oppose rises in fees; they believed Liberal Democrats when they said that they would get rid of fees; and they believed Liberal Democrats when they said that they wanted to be fair. I am sure that when the candidates, who are now Members of Parliament sitting on the Liberal Democrat Benches, spoke to students and promised to be on their side, they meant it. They probably did not know that, in April, their leadership was conspiring to drop that pledge if they got into government. When the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) looked into the camera and promised to be fair and not to raise fees, he did not tell them what was in his head.

Gordon Birtwistle: Does the hon. Lady agree that if the previous Government had not left us in a desperate financial plight, on the edge of bankruptcy, we would not be discussing the problem today?

Emily Thornberry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point because it is central and needs to be tackled. When the majority of people voted either Labour or Liberal, they voted for political parties that, at the time, stood for paying back the deficit responsibly, cutting not too deeply and too fast, but in the context of growth and jobs. Frankly, people who voted Liberal Democrat are desperately disappointed in the turn-about not only on tuition fees but on what we should do for the economy and what is best for the nation. The Liberal Democrats will not be forgiven.

Jonathan Edwards: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Emily Thornberry: If hon. Members will forgive me, I will not give way again-I want to get through my speech quickly so that others have an opportunity to speak.
	As soon as he got into power, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam dumped his principles and pushed his Ministers into a new policy of tripling fees. Ministers then discussed abstaining from that policy, which they had developed themselves, and now they say that they will vote for it. The majority of people who voted Liberal or Labour did not vote for that.
	Neither did people vote for cutting the education maintenance allowance. City and Islington college, as Ofsted confirms, is outstanding. It is a beacon college. Fifty-seven per cent.-2,500 kids-who go to City and Islington get the highest rate of EMA. Those are the free school dinner kids, about whom Government Members cry such crocodile tears. They will lose their money. How many will have the opportunity to do their A-levels and even apply to Oxford and Cambridge? People who voted Labour and Liberal Democrat did not vote for cutting EMA, for raising fees or for the terrible cuts that will decimate our communities.
	The Lib Dem leadership has double-crossed the electorate and is not fit for office. The question for Back-Bench Liberal Democrats is whether they have the backbone to vote against the policy. Do they have the backbone to vote for their principles? Never mind pledges and promises, the debate is about principles. As politicians, we cannot say, "I've got a principle. I keep it in my pocket. I take it out occasionally and I polish it before putting it back in my pocket." Equally, if we get into government, we cannot take the principle out of our pocket and chuck it in the gutter. We have to apply our principles to power and do the right thing.
	I have seen an e-mail from the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). It was written yesterday and is about principles. She says:
	"My view remains that the best solution is for higher education to be paid for from general taxation. Sadly, the voters did not agree, and with fewer than 1 in 10 MPs in Parliament, the Liberal Democrats are simply not in a position to deliver on all of our manifesto policies."
	Well, compromise. Do it in the correct way by voting against tripling fees tonight. If people voted for the Lib Dems on the basis that fees would be cut or not go up, it is not consistent to vote for them to be tripled. Surely anyone can see that. If the Lib Dems do not vote against that and the terrible change goes through, any claim that they ever had to be the party of fairness is gone for ever, and they will never be forgiven.

Sam Gyimah: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) decided to give us a short history lesson. He reminded the House of the debate on tuition fees here in 2004. That Bill passed by five votes. However, he did not say that, during that debate, we heard the same apocalyptic messages that we are hearing in the Chamber today. The issue then was fees increasing from £1,000 to £3,000. No Government Member says with relish that we should increase fees, but it is important to note that six years on from those debates, 45% of people go to university and 200,000 people want to but cannot go. The hon. Gentleman should therefore have told us that, although we were worried at the time, many of those worries proved unfounded.

Elizabeth Truss: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sam Gyimah: May I develop my argument, please?
	I listened to the Secretary of State's argument. I like the fact that he has wrestled with his conscience, flirted with a graduate tax and finally come to the decision that the fairest policy is a graduate contribution. That is in stark contrast to the Opposition, who say that they had the fairest and most balanced solution to the student problem when they did not. What is unfair about the university system they have left us with is that for many people, the costs of going to university outweigh the benefits. That is why graduate unemployment is at 6% when it should not be.

Tristram Hunt: We are having the astronomical rise in fees because of the 80% cut in the teaching grant. We are dealing today with an assault on the entire ethos of the British university.

Sam Gyimah: The real test of policies is the outcome. What is coming out of the system that Labour left us? Lots of students are unable to find jobs when they come out of university, with employers telling them that their degrees are not worth the paper they are written on.

Angus MacNeil: rose -

Naomi Long: rose -

Sam Gyimah: May I develop my argument?
	Why is that outcome important? Unless we understand the outcomes we want from our universities, the debate on fees is totally out of context. I began as a sceptic. I adopted the view that we perhaps needed to row back and have a system that involved fewer people going to university. I thought that a system of grants could be better, or that we could charge less. However, the truth is that higher participation in higher education is here to stay, which is good. We must therefore work out how we can continue to fund that, and how to ensure that our universities remain world class and experiences such as mine at university-if parents cannot contribute, the student is really stuck-are not a key factor in the equation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) mentioned a mother who is worried that she is unable to fund her daughter's education. He is right to raise that concern, because a lot of people will feel that they must dip their hands into their pockets to pay the fees. However, more than anything else, the policy shifts the burden from parents-students pay when they have graduated and when they benefit.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sam Gyimah: No, thanks.
	Everyone has omitted to say that when people graduate, they earn about £100,000 more than people who do not.

Andrew Percy: The situation is that working class families, who are least able to support their children at university, will bear the additional costs. That was my point.

Sam Gyimah: If any lie has been perpetrated in this debate, it is that working class children who want to university cannot get there- [ Interruption. ] May I finish? The truth is that our education system is so bad that for a lot of underprivileged kids, the whole concept of university is simply academic.

Angus MacNeil: rose-

Heidi Alexander: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sam Gyimah: I want to develop my argument.
	Let us look at the proposal in simple terms. Before I went to university, if someone had said to me, "Sam, if you want to improve your life, I will give you money so you can go and do that. When you finish, come back to me only if you have found a job. I'm not going to charge you any interest unless you're earning more than a certain amount, but I want you to improve your life, so go ahead and do so," I would have bitten their hand off.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sam Gyimah: No, thanks.
	If we are to be responsible in this debate, we must explain the policy rather than trade the same political points that we traded six years ago, which have proved to be unfounded.

Paul Uppal: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sam Gyimah: No, thanks.
	We have also seen the old notion of class warfare revamped this week. I saw it mentioned somewhere that Harvard had better access than some of our higher education institutions. What was omitted in that article was the fact that Harvard charges huge fees, and that is how it funds access. I am not saying that we want to go the way of Harvard, but there is a way to have high participation and fees and still ensure that the least advantaged make it.
	That cannot happen just through fees. We need to reform our education system in total. I am glad that the Secretary of State mentioned the need for further education colleges to get more involved in the delivery of higher education. I am pleased that the 40% of students who are part-time students, who have previously had to fund themselves, will now have access to funding through our current policy proposal. I am pleased also that he mentioned that we will help people make their investment decision about which university to go to, through information about which courses will lead to employment and benefit them and whether they will ever see their tutors. Those things drive equality in the education system.
	The motion is purely about fees, but fees are just one part of an entire package of higher education reform. Rather than play politics, we have to examine the whole package before casting judgment on it.

Heidi Alexander: I thank the hon. Gentleman for finally giving way. Does he not accept that for students from poorer backgrounds, the huge debt that they could now face will act as a greater disincentive to go to university than it will for students from more affluent backgrounds?

Sam Gyimah: The truth is that under our current system, it is the middle classes who benefit the most. The people whom the hon. Lady defends are not getting to university, and we need to reform the system so that university is not the same for everyone-three years on campus, costing the same amount of money. There need to be more options for people to get to university over time.
	Tony Blair gave an aspirational target of 50% going to university, and I actually like that aspiration. I am glad that, with this policy, we can continue to drive aspiration forward. The past was not right, because there was no utopia of social mobility. The present is letting students down, because they are not getting jobs-

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Time is up.

David Lammy: I am very grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, particularly as a former Higher Education Minister.
	Young people outside this building are deeply angered, concerned and frustrated by the debate that we are having, and it is right that we all reflect on a generation that may inherit something far less than many of us in the Chamber did. Many of us grew up in a period of largely full employment and pretty generous pension schemes into which the system had paid over a sustained period. Many benefited from free education, which is at the heart of this discussion.

Angus MacNeil: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Lammy: Not at this point.
	The decision that we made in 2004 was not that we should move away from free education, because of course it was not free. Taxpayers were pooling resources to contribute to the higher education of this country. We decided, alongside the taxpayer, to ensure that individual students and universities made a contribution to higher education.

Diane Abbott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who argue that students need not be frightened of £9,000 a year fees, because they will not be paying up front, entirely fail to recognise that for someone who comes from an immediate family in which no one has ever been to university, or maybe even stayed at school past 16, the prospect of debts of £50,000, or possibly £100,000 if they want to be a doctor, must be off-putting? Coalition Members have to put themselves in the position of those ordinary families.

David Lammy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should reflect that fees of £9,000 a year could total up to debt of between £40,000 and £50,000 on completion of a university course. That is substantially more than the annual incomes of many of our constituents.

Several hon. Members: rose -

David Lammy: I will not give way because I want to make some progress.
	That is substantially more than the £3,000 we introduced. The essential ingredient of this debate is that we are breaking the partnership between student, state and university. We are saying that the state can step out of the arrangement, and that the arrangement should be entirely between the student and the university. It is my contention that that is unacceptable.
	When we set up the Browne review, we specifically asked Lord Browne, in the terms of reference, to look also at the fourth constituent part of the arrangement that also benefits. I am talking about employers. Multinational companies in this country benefit greatly from graduates, so I am disappointed that Lord Browne spent effectively 300 words on them. It was heartening to hear the Secretary of State mention employers; I just wish he had not done it so late, and I wish he could attach a figure to what their contribution should be. If this is a genuine partnership, it must be one between students, the state, universities and employers. That is why this is so unfair and why people outside are so angry.
	It is right for students to say, "What do we get for that £9,000?" There should be something before the House explaining what they will get for that money. Let us remember that, because universities had been so badly underfunded under a previous Conservative Government, the fee we introduced was topping up a big black hole in university finances. In fact, much of the tuition fee we introduced went to lecturers' pay and salaries. Many people still believe that they cannot fully identity what they got for their contribution, so as we move to £9,000, should not the Government come forward and say, "For this money, these are the contact hours you will have with your lecturer. For this money, this is the size of your tutorial. For this money, we will be able to tell you what your employment prospects will be afterwards"? But there is nothing before the House about what the student gets for the contribution they are making.
	A young girl approached me this week who wanted to go to my old university-the School of Oriental and African Studies. She wants to study development studies. She is a young black woman in my constituency. However, owing to the message the Government are sending on arts and humanities, and on the worth of doing development studies at SOAS, she is doubting whether it is worth coming out with debt to the tune of £40,000 and doing a subject such as development studies. I say to the Minister for Universities and Science that surely we recognise that we live in a multi-disciplinary, inter-disciplinary world. We do not just want scientists; we want those who study the humanities. We see in universities cross-disciplinary activity producing beneficial results, so why has he chosen to withdraw funds from arts and the humanities and teaching in this manner?

David Willetts: rose-

David Lammy: I have one minute left, so I will not give way. We will hear from the right hon. Gentleman later- [Interruption.] I have one minute left. I will not give way. The clock will not stop.
	We have seen what our best universities are doing on access. Why should the London borough of Richmond send more young people to Oxbridge than Barnsley, Rochdale, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool and Stoke combined? That is unacceptable-and this measure will make it worse. It is unacceptable that 21 colleges across Oxford and Cambridge did not take on a black student. What will this do to address that problem?
	That is why the people outside this Chamber are so angry and frustrated. If the Minister believes that this debate will stop as a result of the vote tonight, he is mistaken. It will continue, and I will join the students and their parents in the protest.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I call Mr Steve Brine, but I should say that he cannot just sit and smile; he has to stand up to indicate that he wishes to speak. Fortunately, I thought that he might want to speak.

Steve Brine: Indeed I do. I apologise for that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank you for calling me.
	I am a new Member in this House-obviously-but there are some things that I have learned in the short number of months that I have been here. When proposals come before us, I always ask two questions: first, can we stick with the status quo and bury our heads in the sand; and secondly, can we put off until tomorrow what needs to be done today? The conclusion that I have come to on the proposals before us is that the answer to both those questions is no. The current funding model for higher education is simply not providing enough money to support the growing number of students who want to go on to higher education. As it stands, we turned away just under 200,000 young people this year. Funding per student is now lower in real terms than it was 20 years ago. As someone once said, "We can't go on like this."  [ Interruption. ] Opposition Members may want to listen.
	As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, we cannot allow our universities to fall behind the rest of the world. India is building new technology institutes and new universities, and in the next 15 years the number of graduates from Chinese universities is expected to grow fivefold, so what do we do? Do we turn millions more young people-people like me-away from aspiring to go to university? I do not want to send that message out from this House. If that is what the Opposition have decided, that is their decision, but it is certainly not mine. Do we just increase state funding to higher education, so that fees can either stay as they are or, as some in this House would like, be abolished altogether? We know that we cannot do that because, once again, the country faces ruin after a Labour Government.
	As Mr Blair's new Government proved, simply increasing the money from the Exchequer was not possible in '97, when we had a fantastic economy, which was bequeathed to Labour, and it is certainly not possible with the wrecked economy that we face today.

Paul Farrelly: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Steve Brine: No thank you.
	I strongly supported setting up the Browne review. I did not sign any pledges about what it might or might not recommend-I think that was the right decision-and I welcome a new system in which no students will pay up-front fees. It is also a system in which, for the first time, part-time students will pay no fees up front. That is a real development. I welcome lifting the repayment figure from £15,000 to £21,000, and I very much welcome the repayment figure being linked to earnings.
	I am new here, and I have wrestled with this decision like no other. I opposed the £1,000 fee in 1998 after the Dearing report, because I feared that it would breach the principle of free higher education. I said that there would be no turning back, and I think that I was right about that. I was not in this House then, but my party opposed top-up fees in 2003-04, because we feared that they would restrict access to higher education. I have to say that I think we were wrong, and we have been proved so, because the number wanting to go keeps going up and up.

Angus MacNeil: If the hon. Gentleman is such a fan of tuition fees of £9,000 per annum, will he pay £9,000 in retrospect for every year that he was at university? He is not duty bound to do so, given that he was not charged when he was at university, but he can freely pay now. He is at liberty to do so. If he so strongly believes in the principle of paying tuition fees, will he now pay £9,000 for each year that he was at university?

Steve Brine: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has access to my bank accounts, but if he did, he might not have asked that question.
	Whether or not we all agree that 50% of young people should go to university, that is a decision that millions of young people and families across the country choose to take. That is the situation that the House faces. I hope that these proposals will put higher education funding and student finance on a sustainable footing, improve the quality of university degrees and put a progressive support package in place for students that will not deter access on account of the absence of up-front fees.
	The Minister will be disappointed in me-I am glad to see him back in his place-if I do not make a point once again about Aimhigher. I think it works and that it has been proved to work, and it worries me that it is disappearing. I urge the Secretary of State and the Minister for Universities and Science to revisit this decision or, at the very least, to do more to safeguard the functions of Aimhigher. Aimhigher Hampshire is based at the university of Winchester in my constituency; it does a very good job.

David Willetts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way-unlike the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I would like to assure him that Aimhigher has produced some valuable initiatives and that individual universities can carry them forward. Indeed, under the new requirements we are introducing for the Office for Fair Access, we will expect them to take initiatives to broaden access. The best of Aimhigher will thus survive in a new form.

Steve Brine: I am glad to hear that. The Minister knows that I will be back and will hold him to that assurance. I also urge him-perhaps he will come back to it when he winds up the debate-to ensure that what universities such as the university of Winchester charge is not pegged at £6,000. They must be free to charge where they see fit within the £6,000 to £9,000 range.
	I take no ideological great pleasure from today's decision, but to govern is, indeed, to choose. I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that to govern is not to abstain, but to choose. I shall support the proposals. We can support or not support only the proposals before us-not those that we would like to be before us. I will support them.

Sharon Hodgson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak against the motion on behalf of all my constituents, especially the teenagers who have e-mailed me over the last few days asking me to do so. I want to talk about what the Government's plans will mean for many of those young people, if not all of them.
	In a Liberal Democrat press release during the election campaign, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
	"If fees rise to £7,000 a year, as many rumours suggest they would, within five years some students will be leaving university up to £44,000 in debt. That would be a disaster."
	I am sure that this is going to be the only time I find myself saying this, but "I agree with Nick." Even if most universities charge the minimum of £6,000, it will still be a disaster. If most of the more prestigious universities charge £9,000, it would be an even bigger disaster.
	For many young people in my constituency, fees of £27,000 will prove the ultimate deterrent to carrying on their education and realising their academic potential. If their ambition were strong enough, they would still find themselves having to think very seriously about going to a local university-to avoid the living expenses-rather than to the best university that would accept them, based on their ability. Indeed, comments made by the Secretary of State in the last debate on this subject lead me to believe that this is exactly what he intends people to do. I find that totally hypocritical, given that he had the opportunity to live in Cambridge and attend a top university.
	Do not get me wrong, Madam Deputy Speaker, as many of the local higher education providers in my constituency are excellent for both the quality of teaching and the student experience. The university of Sunderland was recently declared at  The Times higher education awards as the top university for the student experience. That does not mean, however, that staying local offers the best possible educational opportunities for everyone in my constituency. Many of my constituents are able enough to earn a place in a highly sought-after course elsewhere in the country, and it is imperative that they should feel able to apply to such institutions to study such courses without their main focus being on the potential cost.

Gavin Williamson: The hon. Lady talks about top universities, but the Russell group of universities says:
	"There has been much misinformation about the effect of fees on access. The evidence is clear that fees do not deter poorer students from university-particularly when combined with a progressive repayment system, precisely as the Government is proposing."
	Does that not destroy her argument?

Sharon Hodgson: Not at all. That is rubbish, and I totally disagree with it. As hon. Members have said, the proposal will put off people from working-class backgrounds from going to any university, let alone a top one.
	Of course the headline cost-the £44,000 spoken of by the Deputy Prime Minister-will not remain static. I have done my sums, and assuming my constituents graduate with a debt of £40,000 and are lucky enough to find a job that pays £21,000 in a market ravaged by the Government's cuts, that debt will start to creep up. We hear that the interest rate will be 2.2% plus inflation. I note that for the purpose of raking money in, the Government have chosen the retail prices index, yet for paying out-say, in benefit uprating-they have chosen the lower measure of the consumer prices index. If we add the current RPI to 2.2%, we get 7.1%, which will mean an interest payment of £2,840 per annum on a debt of £40,000. To keep up with that interest and stop the debt rising, a graduate would need to earn more than £52,000 a year.
	Most people in this country, graduate or otherwise, would consider themselves lucky to earn £52,000 by the age of 52, let alone 22. Where is the sense in the Government's proposals if many graduates will have a bigger debt at the end of 30 years than they did when they graduated? On my calculations, I estimate that large numbers of students will have their debt written off under the proposals. How is that a better way of doing things? At least under the previous system graduates were able to pay off their debts, if they were working, on average within 11 years.
	Concessions have been outlined over the past couple of days, as they were when the matter was discussed in a debate in Westminster Hall secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). They must have been drawn up on the back of one of the Deputy Prime Minister's ever-growing pile of empty fag packets, but their announcement gives me the impression that someone in the Government must recognise the damage that their plans will do to the life chances of many young people and to the wider economy. It beggars belief, therefore, that they are still pressing ahead with them.

Christopher Pincher: I do not know who has done the hon. Lady's sums for her-possibly the shadow Chancellor-but they do not add up. Graduates in my constituency on a median salary of £24,000 are currently paying back £810 a year. Under the coalition's proposals, they will be paying back £270 a year. For graduates, that is real practical help, which her party never gave.

Sharon Hodgson: I inform the hon. Gentleman that I did my sums myself. I have them here, and I will forward them to him so that he can see the truth of the matter.
	The Government's reckless behaviour in this and other areas of policy directly affecting young people, such as scrapping the EMA without proper scrutiny, shows that the policies are less about pragmatism and totally about dogmatism. Incidentally, I urge my hon. Friends to read the illuminating article in  The Times-written in 2003, it must be said-by the current Secretary of State for Education. The article highlights exactly how the minds of those in this Administration work, and how they will be worse for our constituents than even the Thatcher Administration, who ruined lives and wrecked communities.
	If Liberal Democrat Members file obediently through the Government Lobby tonight, their betrayal will not be forgotten, and they will never be taken seriously again by their constituents. For the sake of young people throughout England, I sincerely hope that they will manage to locate their spines between now and the putting of the Question, and will join me and other hon. Members in opposing this regressive and deeply divisive motion.

John Leech: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, although, like my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), I wish that the Government had been persuaded not to press ahead with the plans, and that they had not been necessary.
	I do not intend to speak for long, because I think I made it clear last week, during the Opposition day debate, where I stand on the issue of increasing tuition fees. I will vote against the proposed increase, and I was one of the signatories to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West.
	I take no pleasure in voting against the plans presented by my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary. In fact, in many ways I welcome some of the proposals that have followed the Browne review. Increasing the level at which graduates must pay back any money to £21,000 is certainly an improvement on the current £15,000 threshold. Treating part-time students in the same way as full-time students by not charging them any up-front tuition fees will be of benefit, and providing additional support for students from poorer backgrounds is also a step in the right direction. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has rightly confirmed that the proposals are more progressive than the current regressive tuition fees system. However, I will vote against an increase in tuition fees, simply because I think that a higher cap will discourage some young people from going to university in the future.

Paul Farrelly: I, too, signed the cross-party amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). I am sorry that it was not selected.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Browne review. Coalition Front Benchers have made some play of rejecting the upper figure of £12,000, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that by also rejecting the clawback and the disincentive mechanism in the review, the coalition Government have made it more, not less, likely that the top fee of £9,000 will be charged?

John Leech: I rather suspect that most universities will want to reach that £9,000 limit even if they choose not to do so initially. When tuition fees were first introduced, it was clear that universities wanted ultimately to charge as much as they possibly could.

Graham Stringer: I am pleased to learn that the hon. Gentleman will be going into the correct Lobby this evening. However, he has only dealt with half the equation. Can he explain to the people in his constituency-the people of Manchester-why he voted for an £80 million cut in the Manchester university fee as part of the £3 billion cut in university grants?

John Leech: That is not relevant to the debate, or to the point that I am trying to make. The proposals mean that the least well-off quarter of graduates will be better off than they are under the scheme introduced by the last Labour Government. However, the flaw that I see in the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is that no one goes to university believing that they will be among the bottom 25% of graduates. Their assumption will always be that they will have to pay off the whole of their student debt, although for a large proportion of them, that will never be the case. I believe that a number will be put off choosing to go to university in the first place.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Leech: I will not give way a third time.
	As I said earlier, I signed the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West. However, I also strongly support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). Along with most other Members who are graduates, I benefited from a free education, and left university with a very small amount of debt. I am not about to vote to leave future graduates with tens of thousands of pounds of debt. I hold to the old-fashioned principle that a university education benefits the country and the economy as well as the individual. Graduates who are successful and earn high wages after they leave university pay more taxes and repay the cost of their university education that way. I am therefore slightly disappointed that the amendment to which I have put my name has not been selected and will not be voted on, because that vote would have revealed which Members support the principle of free education, and Opposition Members would have had a chance to show their support for the existing unfair regressive fees system. We are not going to get that opportunity, however.
	All we are getting from the Opposition is pathetic political opportunism. The House witnessed that last week, yesterday and this afternoon. The Leader of the Opposition has suggested he supports a graduate tax, but is not prepared to tell us how much it would cost and how many graduates would be worse off under his proposals. This week we are told that the shadow Chancellor has had a road to Damascus-style conversion to the concept of a graduate tax; either that or, more likely, he has had a North Korean conversion to the graduate tax. Both the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor were members of the Cabinet that introduced the Browne review with the explicit intention of raising tuition fees. Nobody in this House or outside it should be duped into believing that Labour would not be proposing an increase in tuition fees if they were still in government. While I welcome their convenient conversion to opposing a rise in tuition fees, the House should be under no illusion: if they were in government they would be doing exactly the same as what is being done today.

Robert Flello: I listened with great interest to the contribution of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech), particularly when he talked about political opportunism. I seem to remember that being on every page of the Orange Book, the bible of the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have a word with the Deputy Prime Minister about political opportunism.
	I am conscious that I do not have much time to speak in this debate, which is a great pity. Yesterday we debated, at insufficient length, how much time we would have for today's debate but, yet again, a Liberal henchman moved the closure motion at the behest of his Tory string-pullers.  [Interruption.] Thank you.
	I should declare an interest. My daughter is currently at university. She is studying a course involving applied theatre and education. The course will not exist after next year, however, because the university is cancelling it, as it is one of the courses the university will not have the funding for because of the 80% cuts.

Kevan Jones: When my hon. Friend's daughter made the decision to enrol on that course, did she follow the advice of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), who said young people should choose which course to study as an investment decision?

Robert Flello: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because the course my daughter chose is of great benefit to the community as it looks at applying theatre in places like prisons and special schools. She looked upon the course not as an investment for herself, but as an investment much more broadly.

Angus MacNeil: In Scotland, Labour's tuition fees were abolished by the Scottish National party. Does the hon. Gentleman think that Labour made a mistake by putting tuition fees on to the political landscape?

Robert Flello: I knew that it would be a great gift to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I think he knows the situation in Scotland well enough.
	Staffordshire university and Keele university serve my constituency and the wider local area. Combined, they are looking at £100 million-plus of cuts: cuts that will affect every possible course, and certainly ones that greatly benefit my constituents. We have heard from Government Members that the cuts are all somehow the fault of the previous Labour Government-I am sure that they will all start shouting, "Yes," in a moment-but they seem to have forgotten the bankers. They have forgotten that it was the banks and the global banking crisis that got us into this mess and that other countries were looking to the previous Prime Minister and Chancellor for a way out of it. If the problems, which require such massive cuts and therefore these fees, are all about cutting the deficit, will Government Front Benchers say that in four years' time-when they intend to have paid off the deficit-these proposals will be reversed and the money will go back into the higher education sector?

Matthew Offord: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Robert Flello: No, I will not give way to any Government Member because they shamefully voted for the programme motion yesterday, so they clearly do not want any debate to take place.
	Let us consider the impact on students. We are trying to raise aspiration in areas such as Stoke-on-Trent and wider north Staffordshire and to get more students into university. Indeed, in the past few years, the number of students from north Staffordshire going to university has gone up by more than a third, which is a huge increase. I have been contacted by a great number of students who are at university in and around north Staffordshire. Many constituents and families have been in touch. I have with me a handful of the e-mails I have received. I have also received many letters and callers to my office.
	Let me quote from what Jasmine wrote to me. At 20, she is the eldest of four children. Her family are all professionals, being in the police force, the civil service or the army. Her mother is a social worker. Like many of my constituents, her family are good, decent, working people who work locally in and around north Staffordshire. Jasmine is currently at Staffordshire university and wants to be a teacher after she graduates-something she could not do if she did not have a degree. She tells me:
	"I am enraged that the government is going to raise university fees".
	She receives only a maintenance loan because her parents work in areas such as social work and the police force and are not therefore able to fund her. Like many people in the Chamber and the wider community, they have children from a previous marriage who also need to be funded and taken into account.

Tristram Hunt: My hon. Friend's constituency and mine share Staffordshire university, which is also dealing with the cuts to its university quarter being driven through by the Government. Why does he think the Government are so anti-university when every other nation in Europe is investing in its science and universities at this time of recession?

Robert Flello: My hon. Friend puts the point extremely well. I do not think the Government are anti-university per se, although we have heard some interesting comments from the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), who said that our education system is "so bad"-perhaps he was following the Prime Minister's lead in talking down British universities, students and teaching. I think they are more interested in promoting elitism.

Matthew Offord: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Robert Flello: No, I will not, for reasons that I have stated. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have voted against the programme motion last night; then I would have given way.

Sam Gyimah: rose -

Robert Flello: The same goes for the hon. Member for East Surrey.
	Jasmine's letter continues:
	"This generation and the one following are the future of Britain and the government should be investing in them-not making it impossible for people to afford, grow and be educated."
	That is just one of many e-mails and letters I have received.
	Is this feeling particular to students or to my students? No it is not. A ComRes poll for ITV said-if I can find it-

Matthew Offord: Let me help the hon. Gentleman.

Robert Flello: No; I will not take the hon. Gentleman's help. He can resume his seat.
	A ComRes poll for ITV News found that 70% of the public agree that higher tuition fees will deter students from poorer backgrounds from going to university and that only 17% think they will not. A recent Ipsos MORI poll found that raising fees to £5,000 a year would deter almost half those from deprived backgrounds who would otherwise go on to higher education and that raising fees to £7,000 a year, let alone £9,000 a year, would cut the number who do so by nearly two thirds.
	This is a shamefully short debate, because hon. Members should have had a proper opportunity to take part. I would have taken interventions had the Government not shamefully curtailed the time available. This debate will rage on outside this place among the disgusted people of this country.  [Interruption.]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. It is not necessary for Members of this House to count down. The clock is perfectly accurate. Although feelings are running very high and arguments are being put forcefully, courtesy can still be shown in this Chamber.

Alok Sharma: We have heard much self-righteous indignation from the Opposition about the proposed rise in tuition fee levels, but no real acknowledgement of why these decisions are having to be made. The fundamental reason why the coalition Government are having to make difficult choices on public expenditure is the shocking state of the public finances left to us by the previous Government.

Anas Sarwar: Is it not the case that the UK spends only 0.7% of its gross domestic product on higher education, compared with the OECD average of 1%? So this is not an economic decision, but a political decision taken by the coalition.

Alok Sharma: This is an economic decision. The Labour party left us with a mess, they have absolutely no plan and they come here trying to oppose a fair policy that we are putting forward. The Opposition have talked about the proposed tuition fees increase "pulling the ladder" away from poorer students, but that clearly is not the case. Such talk is pretty rich coming from a party whose policies in government were pulling the ladder away from the whole country. In case Labour Members are suffering from collective amnesia, I should remind them that it was their party that first introduced tuition fees, that subsequently increased tuition fees threefold in 2004 and that cut hundreds of millions of pounds from higher education when in office. It was also their party that initiated the Browne review, because it knew that changes had to be made in higher education funding. In  The Times of 13 November, the shadow Chancellor, who was the higher education Minister in 2004, was reported to have said that Labour should have gone for higher fees at that time, perhaps of £5,000 a year.

Gordon Birtwistle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a total disgrace that the previous Prime Minister has not been seen since May and has not returned to this Chamber to explain this and apologise to the students outside for putting them in this position?

Alok Sharma: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. It is clear that Labour's opposition to the change in tuition fees is all about party politics and opposition for its own sake.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Alok Sharma: No, I will not give way now. That approach comes from a party that appears to have no consistent or developed policy on higher education funding. The Leader of the Opposition, who is not in his place, has said that that Labour party policy is a "blank sheet of paper". Well is it not time that he started scribbling on it? The Opposition have raised a number of objections to the proposed tuition fees increase. They say that it will put people off going to university, that it will have a negative impact on social mobility and that, overall, the increase is just not fair. Let us examine each of those points.
	Will the increase put students off going to university? Tuition fees have been in place for more than a decade and the number of students has increased by 44%. Why the increase? It is because students realise that having a good degree adds value to their prospects and is a passport to a better job. OECD figures clearly indicate that UK graduates earn, on average, 50% more than those who finished education at A-level.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alok Sharma: No, I will not just now because I want to make some progress. The proposed changes will be an important step in ensuring that the money follows the student and will go further towards making universities more accountable to students as customers.
	I do not subscribe to the view that the proposal will reduce social mobility, because it ensures that no one has to pay anything up front and no one has to repay anything until they earn at least £21,000 a year, a 40% increase on the current figure. Everyone, whatever their background, will be able to take advantage of the opportunities offered by a university education.

Angus MacNeil: If the hon. Gentleman is such a supporter of tuition fees, will he pay £9,000 for every year that he was at university?

Alok Sharma: Another tax rise. That is what we get from the Opposition. Another tax rise. They left us with the biggest budget deficit of all time, and now the hon. Gentleman proposes that we increase taxes further. That is their answer to absolutely everything.
	Let me continue with the proposed extra help. Through the national scholarship programme, the increase in maintenance grants and the required checks to ensure that universities take people from disadvantaged backgrounds before they are able to charge more than £6,000, social mobility will be further encouraged. But social mobility-

Several hon. Members: rose -

Alok Sharma: No, I will not give way, because I do not have much time left.
	Social mobility starts at school, and a report in November 2008 by the Teaching and Learning Research Programme, called "Widening participation in higher education", concluded that a lack of attainment at secondary school was the biggest factor in non-participation in higher education. So it is highly disappointing to see the OECD figures, published over the last few days, which show that secondary school pupils in the UK have fallen well behind their international counterparts, a fall presided over by the previous Government. Between 2000 and 2009, we slipped from seventh to 25th place in reading skills, from eighth to 28th in mathematics and from fourth to 16th in science. The Opposition are not in any position to lecture us on improving social mobility.
	I urge all Members also to take note of all the university vice-chancellors and principals who, in a letter in  The Daily Telegraph yesterday, expressed their fears that social mobility would be curtailed if the regulation were not passed this evening. They said:
	"If the vote on Thursday fails, the alternative is likely to be a reduction in students numbers that would be enormously damaging to social mobility and would seriously hamper Britain's ability to adapt to the economic needs of the future. We urge MPs and peers to support the Governments proposals."
	Are the proposals being discussed today fair? Well-[Hon. Members: "No!"] Well, we cannot continue with the current system. All parties agree, and that is why the former Labour Government proposed the Browne review in the first place. Labour seems to be flirting with the concept of a graduate tax.

Nadhim Zahawi: Does my hon. Friend not agree that that flirtation with a graduate tax is short-term opportunism for which the Opposition will pay dearly?

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A graduate tax would mean that poorer graduates paid more and richer graduates paid less, which is neither fair nor progressive. A graduate tax would also be a tax for life, rather than the maximum period of 30 years in the proposed scheme.
	The coalition's proposed system is fair. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that it is more progressive than the current system, and the Opposition have proposed no system at all. It is fair to all taxpayers that students, who will on average earn significantly more than non-graduates in their lifetime, make a contribution to their education after they graduate; it is only fair to full-time and, now, part-time students and their parents that they do not have to find any money up-front; and it is fair because graduates will pay less per month than do they under the current system.
	I hope that, rather than playing grubby politics with the aspirations of a generation of students, the Opposition will be honest with students and taxpayers. I hope that they join us in offering students increased opportunity and a greater stake in their own education, instead of raising false expectations that an as yet unexplained utopian alternative exists. I urge all Members to support the regulations.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. In view of the level of interest, after the next speaker has spoken I am afraid I am imposing a new limit of four minutes on Back-Benchers' speeches to try to get as many in as possible. I call Naomi Long. Six minutes.

Naomi Long: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate, which will have profound implications for the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland and for my constituents. I hope to come to that point later. However, given the time constraints, my remarks will not be as comprehensive as I would wish. I shall consider briefly just three aspects of the proposals with which I take issue: the first is the principle underpinning the changes; the second is the effect on social mobility; and the third is the impact on Northern Ireland's students and universities.
	First, I shall discuss the principle underpinning the introduction of tuition fees. The increase in fees and the reduction in the grant to universities for teaching is based on the premise that students are the main beneficiaries of a university education and that they should therefore make a specific contribution to the cost. I take issue with that. I may be unusual in doing so, although I am glad to see that some Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members have indicated that they also take issue with it.
	One of the principal benefits to a graduate from their education is higher earnings. However, that is already accounted for in a progressive manner through general taxation. Over their lifetime, graduates pay more than 40% more tax than a non-graduate. The higher earnings of a graduate are therefore accounted for through taxation. However, although graduates benefit from studying, society also benefits from their degree. For those hon. Members who have asked how, I simply say that every time someone goes to their pharmacist, dentist, doctor, sends their child to school or university, drives over a bridge or on a road, or turns off a tap in their home, they are benefiting directly from someone else's university education. Employers benefit from increased competitiveness. In Northern Ireland, our international competitiveness and ability to attract direct foreign investment and develop spin-out economic activity linked to research and development is dependent on having well-educated graduates in our population. That benefit is extended to everyone.
	Like the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), I was opposed to the introduction of tuition fees and top-up fees. I am also opposed to these proposals, which will further shift the responsibility for university funding on to individual students and away from wider society. A number of hon. Members have referred to the introduction of tuition fees as opening a Pandora's box. I think the introduction of tuition fees is akin to a conversation between a man and a woman in which the man says, "Would you sleep with me for £1 million?" The woman then says, "Yes," and the man says, "Now we've established the principle, let's negotiate the price." What we are doing today is negotiating the price, not the principle. Labour Members should take that into account in what they have to say.
	When Labour established the principle of tuition fees and top-up fees, market forces were introduced into the university system. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister said that he would like tuition fees to be scrapped, but that he lives in an imperfect world. I share his aspiration. I am opposed to the measures, not least because by cutting the teaching grant and moving reliance on to individual contributions, the chance for scrapping fees moves from being an aspiration to a pipe dream.
	Social mobility is hugely important and my views have been influenced heavily by my personal experience. Neither of my parents had the opportunity to go to university and both went out to work when they were 14. Indeed, my father did so to fund the education of his younger brother. That situation may become more common in the future, as tuition fees rise. For me, the opportunity to attend university was life changing. I had the benefit of a maintenance grant and did not have to pay fees. That financial support was critical to me. My father died when I was 11 and my mum was on a state pension by the time I made it to university. Without making the sacrifice of what was, effectively, six years of deferred earning, when I could not contribute to the household and was reliant on my mum, I would not have been able to get my education. It was the right decision for me, but it is one I fear that other students might not have the opportunity to take.
	People from lower-income backgrounds tend to be more debt adverse, and that is deeply engrained in their psyche. Full cognisance has not been given to that in developing the proposals. I want other young people to have the opportunities that I enjoyed. I therefore cannot support the proposals.
	As I said last night, the decision taken in this House today will have a profound effect on students from Northern Ireland and on the devolved Administration. An independent review is taking place under the auspices of the Department for Employment and Learning in the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, the report made it clear in its initial phase that it would be very difficult for us significantly to vary from the situation in England.
	It was also made clear in the Grand Committee that the Barnett consequentials of a decision that has not yet been taken have already been factored into the budget. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) will have more to say about that in due course.

Nigel Dodds: I agree almost entirely with the hon. Lady's comments. Does she now regret that during the election campaign she received the wholehearted endorsement of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) and that she was so effusive in her support for the Lib Dems?

Naomi Long: No, I do not regret receiving the right hon. Gentleman's support during the election campaign. I am thankful to be here as an Alliance party Member representing its policies and not as a Liberal Democrat Member. I think that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) is well aware of that.
	In Northern Ireland, this will be a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, if a balance cannot be found between protecting Northern Ireland students who may be deterred from attending university, and underfunding our participation rates, there are serious implications for rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy, which the Government have said is a priority for them. It is hugely important that our universities in Northern Ireland are considered powerfully in this. Northern Ireland universities have some of the best participation rates among lower socio-economic groups. One of those is a Russell group university-Queen's university Belfast. Lessons could be learned from the arrangements that it has put in place to widen participation to support students into education. We should not simply dismiss this as a matter that concerns only English students without giving full consideration to students from Northern Ireland. It is hugely important that the situation in Northern Ireland is fully considered. Although there are progressive measures regarding the repayment of these fees, I cannot, on balance and in the absence of a full package, give my support to what has been put before us.

Nicholas Boles: In the short time available to me, I want to focus on the question that really vexes most people in all parts of this House: what effect do the different systems of university finance available to us have on social mobility? Will this Government's proposals encourage more people whose parents did not go to university to do so? As we have often heard, there are many very strong opinions in this House on the answer to that question. Many Members believe fervently that the fees proposed by the Government will deter people whose parents did not go to university and who come from families on low incomes from going to university. It is also true, as we heard earlier, that some opinion polls suggest that a very large proportion of people say that they will be deterred from going to university. Yet people do not always do what they say they are going to do- [ Interruption. ] We are all flawed.
	I have tried to find research to give us some facts to work with, because projections of what people will do are not nearly as interesting as the facts about what they have done. Several countries operate their university systems on the basis of quite substantial fees, chief among them the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, as well as ourselves. Unfortunately, there is not much research out there that goes into the question of the kinds of people who go to university, but fortunately I have found one such piece of research conducted by a group called Higher Education Strategy Associates. It carried out a truly systematic comparison of what it calls educational equality and it discovered, extraordinarily and against our expectations, that high fees do not deter people from low-income families from going to university.

Sam Gyimah: Is it not the case that in countries such as France, Italy and Holland where there are no fees for university education-that is, where it is free-there is not the mass participation that occurs in countries that have fees?

Nicholas Boles: My hon. Friend is, as ever, way ahead of me and exactly right. The reverse of what one might have expected is true. In Germany, 63% of the student population- [ Interruption. ] Please listen to this, because it is important. In Germany, 63% of students have fathers who also went to university. That means that only 37% of the students in Germany are the first in their family to go to university-the figure in the UK is 51%. Only 29% of students in Australia have fathers who went to university. The figure is only 31% in Canada and 39% in the United States.
	The countries in which universities make the biggest contribution to social mobility are therefore those with the highest fees. How can that be? I agree that it is counter-intuitive. I will not deny to Opposition Members that that is not how one would expect people to behave. However, it is explainable.
	First, such universities have an incentive to expand the number of places, because they receive additional money for each place-enough money to pay for the costs of that place. They therefore massively expand the number of places. That makes it easier for people who have not had huge advantages in life, who have not been able to go to the best schools and who do not have the highest grades, but who are nevertheless huge potential reservoirs of talent, to get places.

Susan Elan Jones: rose-

Nicholas Boles: I will give way one last time.

Susan Elan Jones: I am reluctant to disturb the hon. Gentleman, but I wonder whether he has read the Institute for Fiscal Studies report, which states that under the proposals, graduates from the poorest 30% of households
	"would still pay back significantly more than under the current system".
	That concerns a large number of hon. Members.

Nicholas Boles: The Institute for Fiscal Studies, like everyone else in this debate, talks about what it thinks will happen, rather than what is actually happening in comparable countries.
	The second explanation is that universities that earn a substantial income from fees are able to devote more resources to active steps to woo students from poorer families. They need a lot of wooing because they are frightened about what will happen. Such universities not only invest in wooing students from poorer families, but support them with bursaries and scholarship grants. The university with the best record in the world in participation from low-income families is Harvard university, which charges tuition fees of $32,000 a year. It can do that because it offers scholarships and bursaries to ensure that people are not put off. It goes out into schools and actively recruits people from low-income families.
	Finally, this idea works because universities innovate. They come up with different kinds, shapes, lengths and costs of courses. Some courses take place over longer periods with lots of part-time study.
	I believe that this House should operate on the basis of fact and evidence. The evidence is that the Government proposals will increase the participation of people from poor families, and that is why I support them.

Yvonne Fovargue: I place on record my opposition to the huge rise in tuition fees and the disproportionate effect that it will have in Makerfield, compared with more affluent areas of the country.
	I will commence my remarks at the stage before people apply for university. We have lost the Aimhigher programme, which succeeded in raising the horizons of disadvantaged learners in my community and in motivating them to achieve and to progress. Many young people in my constituency have low aspirations and narrow boundaries, and feel that many of the goals that we are discussing are not for them. That was illustrated when I toured one of the last schools to be completed under Building Schools for the Future. A year 7 pupil, who went around it with me, kept saying, "Look at this, isn't it wonderful? Is it all for us? Isn't it a bit too good for us, really?" Unfortunately for my constituency, the untimely demise of Building Schools for the Future has reinforced that view. That makes the Aimhigher project all the more vital. At all costs, we must avoid a return to the situation in 2004, when schools in Wigan had no links to universities and when many pupils had never been to a university campus, nor spoken to somebody who had started at university.

Jenny Chapman: I have given the progressive nature, or otherwise, of the proposals a great deal of thought throughout the debate, and I have managed to find one way in which they are progressive. It is that they will enable some hard-pressed Labour candidates to progress into Liberal Democrat seats at the next election.

Yvonne Fovargue: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
	Encouraging young people in Makerfield to consider university, and to consider which university course is right for them, has been difficult enough without bringing in the added complication of the huge rise in costs due to the trebling, in some cases, of tuition fees. Not only will potential students from poorer backgrounds be deterred from further education completely, but those who are determined to proceed will feel pressure to choose the most affordable course, even though it may not be the right one for them.
	The average student debt will rise massively to £40,000, according to the University and College Union. In Makerfield, that equates to just over half the cost of the average terraced house, the kind of property in which many of my constituents live. The idea of taking on that amount of debt at a young age, and also having to plan for a future later, is unimaginable and frightening to many people.

Mark Hendrick: Many of my hon. Friend's constituents live fairly close to my constituency, which houses the university of Central Lancashire. Many of our constituents probably thought that £3,000 was quite a lot when the Labour Government originally voted to introduce tuition fees. In fact, we found that £3,000 fees did not close the market. The vice-chancellor of the university of Central Lancashire tells me, however, that fees of £9,000 will close the market, as they will frighten people off going to university.

Yvonne Fovargue: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
	In my constituency, a traditional working-class community, debt is regarded as a bad thing, and parents do not encourage their children to take on levels of debt on this scale. For me, education has always been a partnership between the individual and the state. It involves an investment on both sides. However, this rise in tuition fees, coupled with the cuts to the university teaching budget, has shifted that. The loss of funding for many courses, particularly in the arts, humanities and social sciences, has transferred the funding solely to the students of those subjects.

Gavin Williamson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Yvonne Fovargue: No, I will not give away again.
	Those shifts in funding cannot be fair or right. Is this the society in which we want to live, where we know the price of everything and the value of nothing? Young people in my constituency are angry; they feel let down. They have been e-mailing me and urging me to vote against this increase. I am glad that those people are angry, but I worry about the ones who have not contacted me, who perhaps feel that this unfair policy is all that they deserve, and that they can expect nothing better. It is not what my constituents deserve; they deserve the best chances in life, and I shall vote against this policy to ensure that they get them.

Rehman Chishti: I rise to support the Government's proposals on the basis that they are fair, just and progressive. I have formed that opinion on the basis of my own personal experience, having gone to a local secondary modern high school in a tough catchment area which closed the year I left, and having been the first in my family to go to university. I am still paying back the tuition fees from the Bar vocational course that I took before qualifying as a barrister. I was also an executive member of the National Union of Students in Wales between 1998 and 1999.
	In the light of that experience, do I feel that the Government's proposals will allow students from all different backgrounds to go to university and reach their potential? The answer is that I most certainly do feel that anyone who wants to go to university will be able to do so, and will be able to reach their true potential. The concepts of aspiration, hard work, determination, dedication and perseverance are crucial to getting someone to university, through university and beyond.

Paul Uppal: I come from a working class background-seven children in a two-up, two-down. My parents took two jobs and I did not qualify for a grant because they supported my extended family in India. I worked my way through university. Is not it the case that it is not money, but individual personal ambition and aspiration that drives people?

Rehman Chishti: I thank my hon. Friend for making that pertinent point. It is not simply about money, but about aspiration, commitment, dedication and determination to go to university. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.

Chris Bryant: May I put a slightly different version of the facts to the hon. Gentleman? By the end of a three-year, perhaps four-year course, somebody could have debts of £40,000 or £45,000. For many people in my constituency and in many mining constituencies in this land, that is more than the value of their home. That is the equation that goes through their mind.

Rehman Chishti: The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point. I was at university in Wales and I know the community there. However, the key element is that there are no up-front fees and that is why the motion is a good one.
	One has to consider the overall package rather than single elements for its progressiveness, fairness and justness. As well as there being no up-front fees, the increase in the threshold from £15,000 to £21,000 has to be a good thing. There will be a cap at £6,000 and then at £9,000, linked to exceptional circumstances. Some of the highest-performing universities will have to go out and ensure that students from less privileged backgrounds take part. That is absolutely right and fair.

Richard Graham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, a student who goes on to earn £25,000 a year-the average salary-will repay that loan at the rate of £30 a month for 30 years, and that that represents a substantially good deal?

Rehman Chishti: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. To ensure that students from different backgrounds can go to the some of the highest-performing universities, we must also make sure that students from less privileged backgrounds have better grades at GCSE and at A-level. I therefore welcome the initiative of the Secretary of State for Education on the pupil premium and the student premium as a way forward.
	Increasing the maintenance grant to £2,900 to £3,250 is a good thing for students from families earning under £25,000. Students whose parents earn above £25,000 and up to £40,000 will still be able to get a partial maintenance grant. Beyond that, those from families earning £42,000 to £60,000, can be given loans so that they can go to university. Students in my constituency who go to study in London can have London weighting paid on their maintenance grants.
	Part-time students were treated unfairly and unjustly for so long. They often got a raw deal-and they were often mature students and disabled students. It was wrong that they could not get funding to ensure that they could go to university and fulfil their potential. Our policy on that is absolutely right.
	It is right and proper that money should follow the student so that universities have to improve student experiences and ensure that they improve the quality of education.
	The previous Government's policy of 50% going to university was wrong and misplaced. Instead, they should have ensured more vocational qualifications and apprenticeships because we all have different abilities and talents, and they must all be nurtured. In essence, we have to look at the reason for being in this mess: the previous Government's mismanagement of the economy. [hon. Members: "Oh!"] That will not do. We have one of the worst financial deficits in the G20-the legacy that the previous Government left us.

Sammy Wilson: I feel some sympathy for the Liberal Democrats, having served in a coalition in Northern Ireland and knowing the compromises that people must make. I can understand that they were in a difficult position, but when people put their signature to a pledge, stick a photograph of themselves on it to make sure that people know who signed it and make that pledge a main part of their party manifesto, going for the kind of policy that we are discussing today is not a compromise-it is an abject surrender.

Stephen Pound: No surrender!

Sammy Wilson: Quite right.
	Of course, there are other things that the Liberal Democrats could have compromised on. Was a referendum on a voting system that happens to benefit their party-although perhaps no voting system will benefit them in future-a higher priority than their manifesto pledge on fees? Given the choice between increasing fees by 200%, despite making a firm commitment not to do so, and creating a voting system that happens to benefit their party, I suspect that most people would say that the priority ought to have been to stand firm on fees.
	People may say, "What's this got to do with people from Northern Ireland, because after all, under devolution, it is up to the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to decide their higher education policy?" but that is factually incorrect, because ahead of this vote the Government decided that resources that would have been taken out of higher education were taken out of devolved budgets. Northern Ireland will therefore lose more than £200 million as a result of a decision made on the basis of a vote that has not yet been taken. That restricts the ability of devolved Administrations to set their own policies.

Jim Shannon: My hon. Friend is in a unique position, because he is the Finance and Personnel Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive. Will he indicate what impact the increase in tuition fees will have on the Executive's budget?

Sammy Wilson: I have indicated the impact of the policy on the budget, but the policy also impacts on the ability of the Executive to restructure the economy. It is important for us to have a supply of skilled labour that will attract inward investment.
	Let us consider two of the arguments that have been made today. First, people have said that the policy has everything to do with helping to reduce the deficit and dealing with the economic mess that was left. However, the proposals will lead to more borrowing. The flow of money from graduates will not come through immediately -it will take a number of years-so the deficit will not be reduced. That is not even good economics, let alone good politics. The Browne report says that 70% of those who take loans over the next 30 years will default on all or part of them. Who will pay for that? It will be the taxpayer. Therefore, the public finances will be no better off, unless the plan is to pass greater costs on to students in future. The policy does not make economic sense.
	Secondly, many Government Members have argued that the policy will have no impact on the poor, but the proposed scheme accepts that it will. Why have a national scholarship scheme or all the other things that have been put into the system if the policy will have no impact on the poor? Of course it will have an impact the poor, as the Government themselves admit.

Lady Hermon: The hon. Gentleman is the Finance and Personnel Minister in the Executive, and I am curious, as I am sure the House is, to understand how much consultation the Secretary of State undertook with the devolved Executive. The Secretary of State knows how serious the implications of his policy are for students from Northern Ireland who go to universities in England and Wales.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Lady makes a very good point. We hear a lot about the respect agenda for the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but as far as I am aware there have been no such discussions. Members have argued that there needs to be far more discussion of the details of the scheme and its impact on other Administrations across the UK. That would have been another argument for supporting amendment (b), which was not selected, and it is therefore an argument for voting against the motion.
	I have one more point to make, which has not been made so far. Raising fees to the suggested level of £9,000 will make it easy for universities simply to take the easy way out. Rather than examine whether they deliver an efficient service and spend every pound well, they can simply pass the cost on to the consumer-in other words, the student. That will be unfair to students, but it will also go totally against what the Government say they want to do, which is to make public spending more efficient. For those reasons, we will oppose the motions. We believe that they could have been introduced in a much more consensual way, but that was not done. The Government will be poorer for that, and the whole system of higher education will suffer as a result.

Anna Soubry: May I first declare the following interests? I have a daughter who is currently a student in her second year, and my youngest daughter anticipates going into higher education and going to university in 2012. I am also a former member of the executive of the National Union of Students, which was obviously a considerable time ago. I took part in many a march to this place with people who are now Members not just on my side of the House but on the Opposition side. We did not march peacefully, we shouted out our protest, but we did march lawfully. We should all say that the cause of those who oppose the motions has been done no service whatever by the antics of what may be a minority. That has done nothing but set back their cause, and we should all condemn that criminal activity.
	I had the benefit of getting my degree at no cost to myself-I am of that generation, as are many others in the House. However, I wish to say, notably to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), that this comprehensive-educated girl needs no lessons, please, on social mobility. It is to the eternal shame of the Labour party that after 13 years, far from advancing people who attended the sort of school that I went to, it set the process back.

David Blunkett: rose-

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Anna Soubry: Forgive me, no. Time is so short that Opposition Members may well say that they want to hear less of me, not more.
	I feel that there should be considerably more honesty, notably from Labour Members, about the legacy they left us. That legacy is not just in relation to the deficit, because 45% of youngsters leaving school now go into higher education. I pose this question: has that actually been to the benefit of them and the nation? There is a really good argument that we have had an over-expansion of higher education that has devalued degrees and falsely raised the expectations of young people of my daughters' generation. It has also led to an undervaluing of the skills, ability and achievements of those who have not gone into higher education. That is why I am so proud that this Government have increased the number of apprenticeships by up to 75,000.

Clive Efford: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Anna Soubry: No, sir. Another day.
	What I would say to the Secretary of State, apart from the fact that I admire his courage in all that he has done in recent times, is that I wish him to look again at our proposals in relation to those who repay early. Many families will now save to assist their children through higher education, and I respectfully submit that it would be wrong to penalise them for their thrift in saving for their children's future.
	If we really want social mobility, and if we really want to give people from the most deprived backgrounds the opportunity to enter higher education, we need to improve our schools, to ensure that those who are bright but from bad and difficult backgrounds have the opportunity to move into higher education. That is all part and parcel of our determination to increase social mobility in a way that has not been done in the past 13 years.

Jeremy Corbyn: This debate takes place with an unprecedented number of young people all over the country following the proceedings in Parliament and discussing in their colleges, universities and sixth forms what their future holds and what life has in store for them. Tens of thousands of them have come to London today, and I am disappointed that a very large number of them are apparently being kettled by the police in Parliament square and the streets around Parliament. Surely we want to send out the message that we welcome students to London, welcome their supporters and welcome people who wish to take part in the democratic process and lobby MPs peacefully. I hope we can get the message out that that is what we are trying to achieve today.
	Those young people who are discussing and debating-and, indeed, occupying some universities-are arguing for the right of all young people to have the opportunity to go on to college or university education.

Jake Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jeremy Corbyn: I will not give way, because I only have four minutes.
	I believe that many of the students are protesting for altruistic motives. Most of the current generation of university students will continue to pay the existing-and, in my view, exorbitant-level of fees. They are protesting for the next generation. They are doing it because they believe in the value and opportunity presented by higher education. The coalition Government have come up with a threefold increase in fees that will saddle students with debts of £27,000 for fees alone-never mind the rest of it.
	When young people in inner-city areas or the poorer communities in our country are asked, "What are your prospects? What do you want to do?", many say, "I want to study. I want to qualify. I want to go to university. I want to achieve something in life." If we tell them, however, that unless they are very poor they will have to pay these fees and borrow money to survive and get through university, they simply will not do it. They will go and do something else, and the result will be that all the progress we have made over the past few years on widening participation in education will be set back. If we add to that the ending of the education maintenance allowance, which is a crucial factor in encouraging young kids from poorer backgrounds to stay on at school and do A-levels, national vocational qualifications and all the things that are good for them and their lives, those kids will simply leave at 16 instead.
	By this vote today, we are destroying the opportunities, hopes and life chances of a whole generation. I believe strongly in public investment in public services and public education. The Secretary of State should be utterly ashamed of himself, because in effect the Government are reducing to 40% the level of funding for universities, increasing the privatisation of universities and courses, and ending academic independence. We need to tax the wealthy. We do not need a graduate tax or an increase in income tax to pay for it. Some £6 billion has not been collected from Vodafone thanks to a cosy deal with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. That is actually more than the total amount paid through tuition fees over the past year.
	I signed a pledge not to vote for a fees increase, I voted against the fees increase in 2004 and I voted against the introduction of fees in 1998. Liberal Democrats were on the same ticket at the time-hon. Members should stand up for what they believe in and vote no.

Julian Lewis: Normally when I am called immediately following the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), it is to disagree with most of what he has said, but today is an exception. I endorse most of what he said.
	I begin with an apology to the House and the Business Secretary, in that an unbreakable commitment on the Intelligence and Security Committee prevented my being here for his opening speech. Had I been here, I would have sought to intervene and remind him of our exchange when he made his statement on 12 October. I asked him:
	"Will it not be a sad day for academic meritocracy if and when able students from poor backgrounds are deterred from going to top universities because those universities are allowed to charge more than other universities in fees to students?"
	He replied:
	"Yes, the hon. Gentleman is quite right, and for that reason he will recall my comments about the need to be careful about following through the request of the Russell group universities for unlimited fees. There are serious problems with that. Of course there are advantages in terms of world-class universities, but we need to be careful about going down that road, and we will reflect further on it."-[ Official Report, 12 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 165.]
	Well, the right hon. Gentleman has reflected. He has wrestled very publicly with his conscience, and his conscience has turned out to be the loser. Of course we have not gone right down that road, but we have gone a good way down it by allowing some universities to charge 50% more than others.

Geraint Davies: I am grateful to the Swansea-born Member for giving way. Taking that further, is he sympathetic to the Welsh Assembly's position of limiting fees to £3,000 and limiting cuts to 35%, rather than 80%, accepting that what is proposed is a political choice, not just an economic choice?

Julian Lewis: I do not know what the Welsh Assembly plans to do to balance the books, so it would depend on the context. I will, I hope, come to the context that I would propose, which hon. Members may agree with or quite violently disagree with.

Guto Bebb: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Julian Lewis: For the second and last time.

Guto Bebb: As a Welsh Member, I think that it is worth pointing out that the university system in Wales is already underfunded compared with that in England. As a result of the Assembly's decision, which was made for PR purposes, the situation will get worse.

Julian Lewis: I am certainly not going down the road of turning this into a debate about the affairs of my birthplace, except in so far as it brings me on quite nicely to why I take such a strong stance.
	If I have any reputation at all, it is as something of an expert, but in one, rather narrow field-defence and security. I claim no expertise at all in matters of education policy or financing. However, I do claim experience in the matter that we are talking about today. It may be worth people knowing that every hon. Member gets about 15 seconds of fame-if not 15 minutes-when, eventually,  The House magazine comes to him or her and invites them to take part in the production of a profile of their past and their value system. I want to go back to that one occasion, in January 2001, when I was asked to supply my profile. I said:
	"I grew up in Swansea and went to the same state grammar school as my father, Sam. The difference was that he had to leave at 14 to help his father as a tailor. He used to tell me,"
	when I asked him, that I did not need to know about tailoring, because
	"he would be the last of the tailors in my family,"
	as now there was a system of students grants. I continued:
	"He is an exceptionally intelligent man who would undoubtedly have succeeded at university if he had been able to complete his education in the late 1920s,"
	in the same grammar school that I went to.
	"The university grant system gave me my opportunity, and I never approved of the changeover to top-up loans-let alone for tuition fees."
	I have been listening to some of the arguments-we are beginning to go round and round the same track-but I was particularly struck by the elegant process of ratiocination by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles). He was able to make a convincing case that the more we charge people to go to university, the more people will go and the more poorer people will go. In that case, I am tempted to vote against the Government on the grounds that they are not charging enough. Perhaps we should charge quadruple fees, quintuple fees or even sextuple fees, to ensure that the entire population of the country can go to university.
	I am worried about the prospects for my party. I remember an earlier time when we thought we had a good policy. In fact, I worked with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and one of his most effective speech writers-a very good young man called Peter Campbell-on trying to sell the poll tax to the people. There were all sorts of elegant arguments to show that the poll tax was actually the best and the fairest policy. Well, even if we have a policy that we genuinely think is fair, unless we can convince people that it truly is a fair policy, it will fail and be rejected. I can hear people talk about percentages until they are blue in the face-or yellow in the face-but they will not convince me that young people from poor backgrounds will not be deterred. If they would not be deterred, why was it necessary to introduce the special measures for those who have free school meals? I would have been deterred, and I do not want others to be deterred.

Pat McFadden: The Browne review takes as its starting-point the changes that the Labour Government introduced in 2004. We all know that those changes were politically difficult, but they achieved two major things: they brought more money into universities and they resulted in a large increase in higher education participation, including and, indeed, particularly among students from poorer backgrounds.
	The Higher Education Funding Council for England released figures earlier this year showing that, back in 2004, just one in eight young people from the poorest backgrounds went to university; it is now one in five. Of course there is still a gap in participation rates between rich and poor. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) showed this week, our top universities must do much more to attract a wider variety of students. We did, however, see a big increase in opportunity and participation, following the changes of 2004.

Julian Huppert: I tried to intervene on the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) as I wanted to correct some of his figures before he started scaremongering. The university of Cambridge takes 15% of students from ethnic minority backgrounds as compared with 10% across the country. He spoke about the one British black Caribbean student out of the 35 applying who gained admission to Oxford university, but failed to mention the 23 black Africans, the three other black students, the seven white and black Caribbean students, the seven white and black Africans, the 35 others of mixed descent and the nine others or, indeed, those directly from the Caribbean-

Mr Speaker: Order. Interventions must be a lot briefer from now onwards. That is very unfair to other Members.

Pat McFadden: We are probably all agreed that the top universities can and should do more to attract ethnic minority students.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said, there are some good points in the Browne report. Browne was right to maintain the position whereby fees are not paid up front by students, but by graduates and only after they start earning. This has been portrayed as a new change in the system, but it is not; it has been there since the 2004 changes, although it is still widely misunderstood. Browne is also right to increase the repayment threshold and to include part-time students in the system. Let us be clear, given that the point about part-time students has been portrayed as some great gift from the Government, that the Labour Government explicitly built that into the terms of reference for the Browne review.
	It is also right to place a greater emphasis on providing more and better information for students about the quality of courses and teaching. If students are being asked to pay more, they deserve more power within the system, even if that is sometimes uncomfortable for academics or institutions.

Gareth Thomas: Has my right hon. Friend seen the Government's impact assessment, which suggests that even they recognise that as the teaching grant is withdrawn, fees for part-time students will go up and participation could go down as a result?

Pat McFadden: I was coming to that, because Browne also called for an increase in participation of 10%, yet one of the first acts of this Government was to cut the number of student places by 10,000 when compared with the plans that Labour had put in place. Since the election, both Tory and Lib Dem Ministers have repeatedly attacked Labour's aim to have a participation rate of 50% for our young people. Their attack on higher participation is an attack on opportunity, which we should resist. I stress that participation is about not just the fee level, but getting people to the point where they can make the choice in the first place. Therefore, abolishing the education maintenance allowance and Aimhigher is a direct attack on participation and opportunity for young people.

Chris Ruane: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Pat McFadden: I will not give way again, as there is not much time remaining.
	There is one big problem with the Government's package: the degree of the reduction in the teaching grant for universities. That is what is forcing the fees so high. Hon. Members have even referred to Labour's cuts announced this time last year. Let us do a comparison: we announced a small reduction of 1.6% in the teaching grant; the Government's proposals are accompanied by an 80% reduction in the teaching grant. That is a huge transfer of responsibility and cost from the state to the individual, and it lies at the root of the large increase in fees. Also, rather than the package resulting in more resources for universities, it requires large fees just for universities to be able to stand still. Therefore, the issue is not so much the Browne review as the spending review. That is the problem with the proposals.
	Higher education brings a shared benefit to the country and to individuals. As it is a shared benefit, and we believe in a high level of participation, we share the costs. That was Labour's approach when we made changes in 1998 and 2004. Instead of sharing the cost, the Government's plans go wrong by replacing, to a large degree, the responsibility of the state with that of the individual. That is why fees are being driven up so much.
	The politics of this does matter. The Liberal Democrats are in such trouble not just because they have broken an election promise, but because what they have done is a revelation about how they have conducted politics for years. They signed the NUS pledge because they did not think that they would be in the chair when the music stopped. They are in the chair, and to govern is to choose. The commitment was not just a line in their manifesto but front and centre of their holier-than-thou election campaign. The truth is that they will never be thought of in the same way again.

Duncan Hames: In the debate since the Browne proposals were published, and so far today, many have found it easy to reject what is proposed, but there has been too little presentation of alternatives. I have attempted to bring constructive criticism and fresh ideas to bear on the Government's proposals during the past few weeks. In the House, just over a month ago, the Prime Minister agreed with me that if graduates are to make a greater contribution to the cost of their education, contributions should be related to ability to pay.
	Like the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), I find much in the Government's proposals to welcome, and much that serves to make higher education funding fairer. I particularly welcome the end of up-front fees for the 40% of students who study part time. Retaining the cap on fees, albeit at the higher level, is indeed an improvement on Lord Browne's report. The raising of the repayment threshold from £15,000 to £21,000 is also an improvement on the current system, as is the annual uprating of the threshold in line with earnings. However, I did not believe that it would be fair, come 2015, for today's students to have to make payments from the substantially lower threshold of £15,000, while the most recent graduates would be able to earn up to £21,000 before beginning their contributions. I have made that point on the Floor of the House to the Minister for Universities and Science.
	Therefore, I truly appreciate the movement that the Government showed yesterday in announcing the annual uprating of the repayment threshold for existing students and graduates, not just for those starting their studies from 2012 onwards. The measure should not be underestimated. It calls a halt to repayments for more than 100,000 graduates on modest salaries, and it cuts the contributions asked of 2.5 million graduates by hundreds of pounds each over the course of this Parliament. However, I hope that when the new system is in place, the gap between the existing repayment threshold and the £21,000 level can be closed entirely. At the very least, under the existing system recent graduates should be offered the option of transferring to the new system, with whatever outstanding contribution they have left at the time. In that way, they could indeed benefit from the increased threshold.

Claire Perry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Duncan Hames: I will give way to my constituency neighbour.

Claire Perry: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's reference to the progressive nature of the measures. Is it credible that the Labour party, which introduced the principle of graduates paying and voted for two increases in tuition fees, is able to drum up quite so much fake anger this afternoon?

Duncan Hames: What amazes me is that Labour Members were not prepared to raise the £15,000 threshold in any of the last six years.
	There has been another failure since the Opposition introduced tuition fees, which has been inadequately addressed for too long-for 13 years, indeed.

Pete Wishart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Duncan Hames: I will not take any more interventions.
	Back in 1997, the Dearing report concluded that the cost of higher education should be shared among those who benefited from it: the student, the state and the employer. For the past 13 years, the Government have ignored the conclusion that employers should also contribute to the cost of higher education. Not only are graduate employers not required to make a direct contribution, there appears to be no method of facilitating that, even on a discretionary basis. I invite the Government and industry to develop broader proposals to facilitate, and even encourage, direct employer contributions to graduates' higher education. Such contributions would effectively reduce what is being asked of graduates themselves. They could even prove to be more tax-efficient for the enlightened employers who chose to make them.
	In the weeks since the publication of the Browne review, I have persistently sought to persuade the Government to amend their proposals to make them fairer. The Government have responded constructively, and have listened while others have failed to set out a fair and affordable alternative. In this way, we are making things fairer; and although there is more to do, I am confident that Ministers will continue to engage with the issues. That is why I will join them in the Aye Lobby.
	I promised my constituents that I would work towards a fairer system of higher education funding. That is indeed what I have done, and it is what I will continue to do.

Pat Glass: I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be brief and focus on what is, in a sense, a niche issue: the impact on students who want to pursue longer, more prestigious and therefore often more expensive courses. A rise in tuition fees will have an adverse effect on all students of all disciplines, but those who wish to pursue longer courses, including architecture, veterinary science, medicine and dentistry, will be particularly affected.

Jake Berry: I wonder whether the hon. Lady would agree with my constituent Anna, who is protesting here today. She told me that her greatest fear was that universities were not prepared to offer shorter courses. She was given only six hours of lectures a week, and had asked to increase that to 12 to complete a degree in two years. Does the hon. Lady think that it would be possible for those taking longer courses to attend more lectures, thus compressing the time?

Pat Glass: I am sure that in an ideal world that would be fabulous, but we do not live in an ideal world. An architectural course can take between seven and eight years to complete, depending on the placement element of the course. A student taking such a course at one of the Russell group universities could end up with a debt of £100,000. That is the size of some mortgages, especially in a constituency such as mine. It is terrifying for most people, but it is absolutely terrifying for an 18-year-old student from a constituency, or a background, where no one else has ever gone to university.
	The location of medical schools and universities delivering longer courses means that for many living at home is not an option. The intensity of their courses often rules out part-time work, which exacerbates the potential debt problem for those students. For those who want to enter one of the more prestigious professions, there is often no alternative route of entry other than to study at university. Young people whose families cannot afford to pay their fees for them, or who live in communities where going to university is not commonplace, are being put off going to university.

Bill Esterson: Yesterday I met Liam Cunningham and Joe Short at an event in Maghull in my constituency, and they made a similar point to me. They said that what they and their friends are most concerned about is the prospect of starting their working lives saddled with tens of thousands of pounds of debt. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is one of the fundamental problems with what the Secretary of State has announced?

Pat Glass: Yes, I agree. It goes further than that, however. Professions such as medicine, dentistry, law and architecture should be representative of the society they serve, but despite all the efforts to achieve that, they remain largely populated by people from higher-income families. The Secretary of State comes to the Chamber and lectures us, saying it is unacceptable that only 46 young people on free school meals went to Oxbridge last year. I agree that that is unacceptable, but I do not think even the Secretary of State, operating out of his ivory tower on the top floor of Sanctuary Buildings, can possibly believe these proposals will improve that. Evidence from the Secretary of State's own Department clearly shows that students from lower socio-economic backgrounds are more debt-averse than others. These proposals are highly damaging, and will result in fewer, not more, young people on free school meals and on low incomes getting to university, let alone Oxbridge.

Ian Mearns: I thank my very good hon. Friend for giving way. Social mobility is an important issue, because it is not just about tuition fees. The coalition Government have cut child trust funds, child benefit for some, school sport partnerships funds, Building Schools for the Future, education maintenance allowance awards and the future jobs fund. They are also scrapping Aimhigher and are now trebling tuition fees. What have they got against children and young people?

Pat Glass: Several Government Members have asked why non-graduates should pay for graduates. If we take that to its logical conclusion, we would also ask why couples who have no children should pay for the education of those who have children, or why the healthy should pay for the NHS to care for the sick. That is where that argument would take us.
	The Government are creating a society in which access to university will return to being for those who can afford it, rather than those who deserve it. Talent will be ignored and un-nurtured, and ultimately we will all pay the price as our economy fails to keep pace with those of our competitors. This is not simply a moral argument, therefore; there are also strong economic arguments against the proposals.
	I have said a number of times in the House that more people in this country are aged over 65 than under 16. That skewed profile will increase, so we will need a better educated and more highly skilled work force in the future. These proposals would give us the opposite, however; they would simply waste our seed corn for the future.
	Finally, I want to talk briefly about the young people themselves. I regularly meet a group of young people who come from the schools councils of all the secondary schools in my constituency. When I met them two weeks ago I expected anger, but I was surprised at the depth of their anger. It was not just about tuition fees; it was about EMAs too. Not a single one of them was in receipt of an EMA, but they were angry about what it was going to do to their peers and their sixth forms. They asked me to give a message to the coalition Government. They feel particularly let down by the Liberal Democrats-they feel they have been callously and cynically misled by them-but their feelings about the Tories were more straightforward. They told me to pass on the message that this was the same old Tories and the same old cuts, and that they were not to be trusted with our public services or our futures.

Guto Bebb: I have listened to this debate with great attention, and I was struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who said that there is an issue of principle at stake. I was confused by that comment. What did the hon. Lady mean? The concept of free higher education has been lost as a result of previous Labour Governments' actions, so that issue of principle was lost under them. Another principle that we have heard much about from Opposition Members is the need for the general taxpayer to pay for the education of all higher education students, but the graduate tax proposed by some Opposition Members would mean that some people would pay and some would not.

Claire Perry: May I point out that with a graduate tax, the money would flow directly to the Treasury? We know that Labour Members like it when money flows into the Treasury to be doled out, but is not our principle much better for universities?

Guto Bebb: I accept my hon. Friend's point.
	What we are considering is not an issue of principle, as the Opposition say, but-

Owen Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Guto Bebb: I am afraid that I cannot take any more interventions because of the time.
	We are talking about creating a system that will allow greater access, be more affordable and, in my view, ensure that higher education is properly funded.
	Let me address the issue of better access. I am proud to be a graduate of Aberystwyth university, and when I graduated 20 years ago, the university had 2,700 undergraduates, whereas the current figure is almost 10,000. That increase is most welcome; I think both sides of the House welcome the fact that more young people have opportunities in education. However, those opportunities come at a cost and the Labour party continually allowed a situation to develop in which more and more people were going to university but sufficient funding provision was not put in place.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Guto Bebb: No, I will not.
	It is important to point out that access comes with a cost. The coalition Government are trying to introduce a system that will ensure that fair and reasonable access to further education continues. Access has been discussed at length. I particularly welcome the fact that we are doing so much to ensure that there is fair support for people who study part-time. I have mature-student and single-parent constituents who want to move into further education, and they will be supported as a result of these decisions.

Chris Bryant: In Wales.

Guto Bebb: I will respond to the heckling in a minute, but I am quite confident that better access will be delivered as a result of these measures.
	Affordability was discussed at great length by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who made an impressive speech. The cost of tuition fees might seem very daunting to some, and I am sure that many students will be daunted by the prospect of having debts of £20,000 or £30,000, but we need to consider this issue in the round. The other day, I had an e-mail from a parent asking whether their child, who hoped to become a teacher, would end up having to pay those astronomical fees. My response was clear: on a teacher's starting salary of £20,500, that person would not pay those fees, because we are raising the threshold.

Chris Bryant: In Wales, they would not.

Guto Bebb: I will come back to that point about Wales.
	The average salary in a constituency such as mine is £25,000 a year. Someone on such a salary would make repayments of about £360 a year. Dare I say that many people from north Wales will spend £360 on a weekend in Cardiff for a rugby international? Let us consider the option of spending £360 on a rugby weekend or £360 a year for an education: I think the choice is fairly clear.
	Opposition Members have been heckling me about Wales. Yes, I stand here as a Welsh MP and I am embarrassed by the public relations stunt of the Welsh Assembly Government. I am embarrassed by the fact that they are willing to raid the education budget to pay for a policy to take them through to the next Assembly election. I am embarrassed that, increasingly, the Welsh education system will not be able to deliver a quality education and that as a result more and more Welsh students will choose to study in England, leaving less money for the Welsh system. I support the measures because they will improve access, increase affordability and ensure proper funding for the higher education system in this country.

Jonathan Edwards: As we debate tuition fees, it is worth reminding ourselves that 90% of us in this House have benefited from university education; the overwhelming majority, right up to the youngest in the House, will have benefited from free education, as I did.

Gavin Shuker: I am one of only a few Members of this House who went to university under a loans and fees system, so may I point out to the House that there is a real risk that the increased debt will put off poorer people? That will be even more the case when the fees are £9,000.

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point that comes from his personal experience, and I am sure that everyone in the House has listened to those concerns. A very serious accusation has been laid at the door of not only this Parliament, but those before us. It is that, having benefited from free education paid for by taxation, we are pulling the drawbridge up behind us and leaving others to pay.
	I need not remind hon. Members that the Labour party, whose Members are now complaining so passionately about an increase in tuition fees, was the party that first broke the compact with our young people and undermined the concept of free education for all. Fees were introduced in 1998, with a higher rate following in 2004. The very fact that this new funding regime is being introduced by a statutory instrument indicates that this is a continuation of Government policy, rather than a new development.

Pete Wishart: We all know the record of the Labour party, which includes having introduced tuition fees, but does the hon. Gentleman share my surprise that Scottish Liberal Democrats will be voting for this English-based measure? It offers no benefit for Scotland, only pain and hurt. Does he welcome the opportunity that his nation and my nation will have to cast their verdict on the Liberal Democrats next May?

Jonathan Edwards: As always, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Education is a right, not a privilege. The benefits that a highly-skilled and well-educated population and work force provide are crucial if we are to maintain our position in the world, and to continue to develop a knowledge and value economy. In Wales, we believe that with the right support we can become a small, clever country, like our Scandinavian friends, delivering a better quality of life for our people. That is why last week's announcement by the Welsh Government is to be welcomed. It shows why it is important that we have our own Government in Wales, so that policy can be based on our values as a nation. It is also why I believe the electorate of Wales will vote next March to confirm further powers for the National Assembly, so that Wales can achieve full political sovereignty over devolved policy areas.
	Many hon. Members will not have heard that announcement in detail. Made by a different Member for Rhondda than we usually hear from in this House, the announcement by the "One Wales" Government affirms that: they do not support full cost or near full cost fees; they do not believe that higher education should be organised on the basis of a market; and they do not believe that it is sustainable in the long term for the UK to adopt a policy of having the highest tuition fees for higher education in the world outside the USA.
	In "One Wales", we in Plaid Cymru and Labour, committed ourselves to doing whatever was possible to mitigate the effects on Welsh-domiciled students if the Westminster Government lifted the cap on fees, because we believe that access to higher education should be based on academic ability, not the ability to pay. In other words, the increase in fees for Welsh-domiciled students, whether they study in Wales, England, Scotland or Northern Ireland, will be paid for by the Welsh Government. Welsh-domiciled students will continue to be eligible for subsidised loans to meet the cost of fees up to the current level.

Michael Connarty: That is an interesting concept. If the Welsh Government are allowing the fees to be paid to the universities at the higher level but are subsidising their students, is that not a good recommendation for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish National party?

Jonathan Edwards: My Scottish friends have an even better and honourable position of having no tuition fees, and I wish that that was the case in my country. We are putting forward the best-case scenario given what we face in our country. The Welsh Government will pay for this measure by top-slicing the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales teaching grant, but Welsh higher education institutions will still enjoy a higher level of teaching grant support than institutions in England. The UK Government are proposing an 80% cut in the university teaching grant in England, moving the cost of education almost completely on to the student-it is the consumer who pays. The cut in teaching grant in Wales will be 35% and, thus, the vital contribution and principle of public funding for higher education will be maintained.

Chris Bryant: But is it not also important that one of the measures introduced in Wales ensures that individual youngsters in Wales can study any course anywhere in the United Kingdom that is right for them? The money will follow them, including to English universities. For example, they could not train to be a vet in a Welsh university, but they will be able to do so elsewhere under this system.

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and of course I fully agree. I made that point earlier in a slightly different context.
	That measure is a good deal for Welsh students and a good deal for Welsh universities.

Alun Cairns: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise the funding gap between Welsh and English universities, and that the Welsh Assembly Government's policy is wholly unsustainable and merely a stunt before next May's election?

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman, as usual, is grandstanding. I totally disagree, and the Welsh Government's proposals last week will not make any difference to the funding gap.
	In the lead-up to this debate, I have been happy to sign amendments by Liberal Democrat Members who oppose the fees increases, and I have tabled my own. I congratulate them on their principled stance, but that action needs to translate into voting against the substantive motion in the name of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable). To those Government Members who are considering abstaining tonight, I say that abstaining on this issue would be just as good as voting in favour, so I urge them to join us in the Lobby later.

Damian Hinds: There are some very real and big choices in this debate. The three biggest are, first, how many young people we want to be able to go to university; secondly, the extent to which we want those who do not benefit directly to pay for those who do; and, thirdly, how to ensure that we widen access and promote social responsibility. There is no perfect answer, but on those three choices the Government have it about as right as one could get it.
	Many hon. Members have noted that it is sometimes a difficult conversation when people of our age-

Bill Esterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Damian Hinds: I am sorry, but because of the time I cannot.
	It is sometimes difficult when people of our age have conversations with teenagers about university tuition, because it is startlingly obvious that we had an incredibly generous deal. That deal, however, was always based on such education being available to a relatively small number of people, and we were just the beneficiaries.
	In the year I was born, 414,000 people were in full-time higher education; when I went to university, the number was 660,000; and now, it is 1.3 million. When we experience changes of that magnitude, we must fundamentally rethink how we pay for such things. Members from all parts of the House agree on that fundamental point, as they do on pension reform and on long-term care.
	There has been another major change over those 40 years: real household income per head is 2.5 times what it was in 1970. That does not come from nothing; it comes from economic growth, an increased number of higher, value-added jobs and, most of all, growth in the professional and managerial classes, which is enabled by more people participating in higher education. We need those trends to continue, because never again will we make T-shirts cheaper than China. We need wider participation in higher education to thrive, and we need to excel in the necessary markets: advanced manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, financial services and, indeed, education itself.
	The global market for higher education is growing at 7% compound per annum. This country is uniquely well placed to take advantage of that, first, because of the gift-literally, the gift-of the English language, and, secondly, because of the marvellous higher education brand names in England and, I must say, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. To thrive in that market, however, our universities need to be properly funded, and top universities have long complained that, even with the Government contribution-

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Damian Hinds: I cannot, because of the time.
	Top universities have long complained that, even with the Government's contribution and the fees, they were underfunded and could not cover their costs. Incidentally, the cost also applies to EU students. There were 61,000 such enrolments last year, a number that is growing fast, and they are also partly subsidised by the British taxpayer. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) made light of the following point, but universities have used non-EU students as a cash cow to plug the funding gap, and that is not sustainable in a competitive, global market. Universities must be funded properly and sustainably.
	It is true that, in higher education, there are what economists call both private returns and social returns, in other words, matters of social benefit, but all the studies say that the private returns outweigh the social returns, so it is fair that the students, over time, bear much of the cost.
	With the package before us, with variable fees, requirements-rightly-to widen access and the higher £21,000 repayment threshold, we can continue to increase the number of young people accessing university, with all the benefits that that brings, and gear up the UK to take advantage of that key global growth market.

Adrian Bailey: As the Chair of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, which is charged with monitoring and scrutinising Government policy in this area, I have to make the point that this issue has aroused more interest than any other that my Committee is charged with considering.
	I have received submissions from many students and would-be students, from various groups of universities and from parents. However, above all, I have had submissions from different sectors of industry that know that their future well-being and capacity to grow the country out of recession will be crucially affected by such legislation. I am therefore very disappointed that, in bringing this item forward now, the Government are precluding the sort of scrutiny that is necessary and that will be introduced following the White Paper.
	The White Paper should have been published before this move was made so that my Committee, and the House in general, could consider the issue in the round and make an informed judgment. Inevitably, when the Committee meets, it will do so when the funding and tuition fees issue has already been decided. We will have to examine the consequences and potential unintended consequences.
	I refused to sign the fees pledge. I did so knowing that higher education would need more funding and that we would have to examine the funding system in the context of a difficult financial situation, which could result in difficult decisions. There is a legitimate debate to be had about the balance of interests between individual contributions, the benefit that someone gets from higher education and the public benefit that comes from that individual's education, which the public should invest in. Unfortunately, the procedure adopted has precluded that debate from being held.

Steve Rotheram: On 10 November in Prime Minister's questions, the Deputy Prime Minister admitted to breaking the pledge he signed on tuition fees. However, on 21 November on the "Politics Show", the Business Secretary denied breaking the tuition fees pledge. Which end of the Lib Dem pushmi-pullyu is right?

Adrian Bailey: I do not want to be diverted by the grief and contortions of the Lib Dem party because there are some other very serious issues that need to be addressed.
	Any package that is put forward must meet two criteria. The first is that it must provide the extra funding necessary to provide the flow of graduates into our industries and public services that will sustain the economy.

Bill Esterson: The University and College Union estimates that students currently graduate with around £23,500 of debt and that these proposals would increase that to £40,000. Does my hon. Friend agree that such high levels of personal debt are one of the main failings of the proposals?

Adrian Bailey: I will come to that issue in a moment.
	Let me just finish what I was saying. I have questioned Ministers both at the Select Committee and in the Chamber on whether these proposals will bring in any net increase in funding for universities. I have yet to receive any assurances that they will. In context of the world situation, we must remember that these proposals have been introduced at a time when the most advanced western countries, including European countries with similar financial problems as us, are investing in higher education because they know the economic dividend that accrues as a result will get them out of recession. Despite such a profound change to our funding system and all the potential consequences, this country could lose out on the vital issue of growing itself out of recession.
	My second point is about social mobility and accessibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) mentioned the potential £40,000 debt that is incurred. My constituency is a case in point, as a traditional industrial area with traditionally low aspiration and educational attainment. Over the past five or six years, that has been transformed by the money that has been put into education, the education maintenance allowance and the Aimhigher project.

Stella Creasy: rose -

Adrian Bailey: I cannot give way any more-I apologise.
	Unfortunately, the rungs that were going to sustain that improvement are being removed. Above all, that £40,000 debt will play on the minds of would-be graduates in my constituency. To potential graduates from low-income households, such a sum appears to be disproportionately more than to those who come from higher-income households. The measures that the Minister said would be put forward to replace Aimhigher appear to be reinventing the wheel, and privatising the wheel, because in effect they will ensure that low-income graduates will pay £9,000 to go to universities that will recycle that money to encourage more low-income graduates to go to university and incur the same debt.
	A system that has been effective in improving social mobility and supporting people from low-income households into university is being replaced with one that will be essentially self-funding. It will not work, and the potential consequences for social mobility are most profound. I believe that these proposals are hasty and ill considered, and that they will be ineffective.

Gareth Thomas: This has been a genuinely passionate and robust debate. We have heard interesting contributions from across the whole House, including from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), from the hon. Members for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett), for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell), and from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).
	There were interesting contributions from the hon. Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah). The contribution by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) was particularly interesting, given his experience. There was an interesting contribution on Aimhigher from the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr Brine), and another from the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech). There were particularly interesting contributions on the question of access from my hon. Friends the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue).
	There were contributions from the hon. Members for Reading West (Alok Sharma), for Belfast East (Naomi Long), for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and for Chippenham (Duncan Hames), and from my hon. Friends the Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). We heard a particularly interesting contribution from the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).
	We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), who gave another interesting speech. We also heard from the hon. Members for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). Finally, we heard from the Chairman of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey).

Clive Efford: My hon. Friend has read out an extensive list, but has he noted how many Members were rising to speak when the Speaker called the Front Benchers to sum up? I wonder whether he can remember a debate of this importance, with a four-minute speaking limit, that has left so many people unable to get in. Does not that underline the fact that the guillotine that was imposed was unjustified and that it has denied Back Benchers the right to speak?

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. We tried to get the Government to take the time out to publish a White Paper and to allow the House to have proper consultation and a proper debate. We never tried to curtail debate when we were in government-we allowed extensive time for Second Readings and for Committee proceedings.

Stephen Williams: Has the hon. Gentleman gone on such an enormous geographical tour and then spent time talking about time simply to waste time because he does not have a policy of his own to tell us about?

Gareth Thomas: I thought that the hon. Gentleman could do better than that.
	This has been a particularly interesting debate because of the cross-party opposition to the Government's proposals. It is a pity that the coalition Government could not be bothered to listen properly to the concerns of their Members of Parliament. The Secretary of State walked out as the hon. Member for Leeds North West got to his feet, and those on the Government Front Bench chuntered away as the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole spoke.
	I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister on one thing: in the heat of the debate about the Government's plans, some unhelpful myths have circulated. He should know, because it is he and the Prime Minister who have been peddling those myths. The pair of them are about to become Britain's premier loan sharks: targeting those who are not well off, never letting people pay off their loans, always increasing the interest rates, and allowing no escape from the ever higher debts.

Jim Cunningham: Did my hon. Friend note that the Secretary of State refused repeatedly to give way to Labour Members during his speech and did not allow them to express their views?

Gareth Thomas: I cannot criticise the Secretary of State for not giving way to those on the Front Bench. However, if we had had more time, as Labour Members sought from the Government last night, far more Members from all parts of the House could have intervened in the debate.

George Freeman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the points about debt that he and his hon. Friends have made would carry a little more weight if they had not left every man, woman and child in this country with a debt of £22,000?

Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, because I was about to say that the first myth that Government Members have peddled is that the Government have no choice in this matter because of the economic situation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) pointed out in his speech, even within the terms of their reckless approach to reducing the deficit, the Government could have proposed a fee increase of hundreds of pounds, not thousands of pounds.

Owen Smith: rose-

Stella Creasy: rose-

Gareth Thomas: Let me just make this point. Even Ireland-which we are all watching closely, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that there is an economic miracle going on that we should emulate-is not cutting its university teaching budgets by 80%, nor is it increasing student fees threefold. The proposals before the House tonight are what happens when Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer are allowed to run the Treasury unchecked.

Stella Creasy: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is impossible to explain to students in Walthamstow, where there has been an 87% increase in people who go to university, that the proposals are fair, when the Government are rowing back on the bankers' levy? Does that not show what their priorities are for this country?

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the stark contrast between what the Government said they would do when in opposition, and what they are doing in government.
	The second myth that Government Members have peddled is that the responsible position was to change the balance in funding between graduates and the Government. That might have been a reasonable line if a slight shift was involved, but the Government have thrown away the scales and are loading the whole cost -not a bigger part, but the whole cost-of a university education on to the graduate, particularly for art, social science and humanities courses.
	The Deputy Prime Minister tells us that social mobility will not suffer. The money for widening participation, for championing the brightest and best from low-income backgrounds, and for helping mature students to do part-time courses is being axed. As the hon. Member for Winchester said, Aimhigher, the premier programme for widening participation, has been abolished. As Labour Members have said, the educational maintenance allowance, which helps low income students, will stop in January. The widening participation premium that is paid to universities to help them recruit and retain those from disadvantaged backgrounds is expected to be cut.

Elizabeth Truss: Is it not the case that under the previous Government, only 19% of the lowest-income households contained students who went on to university? That is the record of the previous Government.

Gareth Thomas: With all due respect to the hon. Lady, she should look at the figures. There was a 30% increase in people from low-income households going to university.
	In the last week or two, even the Government have begun to recognise that high fees will put off students. As the hon. Member for East Antrim said, by proposing a national scholarship scheme for children who are entitled to free school meals, the Government are at last admitting that high fees will put off students from low-income families. It would have been nice to have had a little more detail from the Secretary of State on how that would work, but he could not offer us any.
	There are people watching the Liberal Democrat contortions who think that we have been watching the first pantomime of the season, with the Secretary of State for Business as the Widow Twankey of the Government, and the Deputy Prime Minister as the servant boy Buttons, frantically rushing around trying to please his new master. I am not going to go down that path, however, because there are only two certainties for the Liberal Democrats. The truth is that they are all playing the back end of the horse, and no-no one is behind them!
	I recognise that, for Liberal Democrat Ministers, the question of student finance is very finely judged. For those tortured souls, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) and the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), the nub of the principle that they are grappling with tonight is a tough one: "If I keep my ministerial Mondeo, will I lose my seat?"
	When no G8 or OECD country other than Romania is cutting higher education back, it is clear that Opposition Members have to speak for all those people across the nation who recognise the damage that these proposals will do to our universities and the impact that they will have on the economic, social and cultural future of our country. More than 75% of students will end up paying more under these proposals than is currently the case, and graduates earning middle incomes at the age of 25 will pay the most, including those who want to be teachers, engineers and police officers: ordinary working people and families wanting a better future for their children, and young people dreaming great hopes-the very people the Secretary of State now turns his back on. Is it not clear tonight that those families and young people, whether they are on low incomes now or whether they will be on low or middle incomes when they graduate, are being let down by the parties in the coalition?
	Tonight, Opposition Members speak for ordinary working people. We speak for Britain's middle class. We will speak for those on low incomes in every constituency, and for all those who are outraged by this attack on the ambitions and aspirations of the brightest and best of Britain's next generation. An abstention tonight is not enough. I urge the House to reject these proposals.

David Willetts: We have indeed had a passionate and robust debate, and I am sorry that there will not be time for me to respond to all the points that have been made. The reason for the passion is that all of us care about the future of our universities, and about how we discharge our obligations to the younger generation. It has to be said that all three parties, when in government and confronted by the challenge of how to finance higher education in our country, have reached the same conclusion. All have concluded that the way forward is fees, paid for by loans from the taxpayer and repaid by graduates.

Peter Bone: My problem in deciding how to vote tonight is related to my constituents, and to whether this measure will put them off going to university. My right hon. Friend the Minister has already indicated that there will be an annual review of the measure. Will the £150 million be used to help all low-income families, rather than just those on benefit?

David Willetts: I can assure my hon. Friend, as I chair the group planning the use of that extremely valuable £150 million, that we will consider a range of options for who could be assisted by the scholarship programme.
	I was explaining to the House how all three parties have reached the same conclusion, albeit by a rather circuitous route. When we were in opposition, my party voted against the fee increases in 2004, and we remember that decision because we were afraid that the effect of fees would be to put poor people off applying to university. We have now seen the evidence, however, and it shows that, since fees came in-and because there were loans as well-the proportion of people going to university from the poorest backgrounds in England has actually gone up. It has not gone down. Indeed, by contrast, in Scotland, the proportion of people from the poorest backgrounds attending university has fallen while it has gone up in England. That is why my party has concluded that fees supported by loans do not deter poor students from going to university.
	The Liberal Democrat party and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, when confronted with the challenge of how to deliver progressive policies in a time of austerity, have rightly concluded that this is what we have to do.
	The Labour party, now so irresponsibly retreating to the comforts of Opposition, was explaining such policies six years ago. I see the shadow Chancellor laughing. Six years ago, he was in the position that I occupy today, and he explained only the other day, as well as anyone could, the logic of our proposals, in his famous note to the leader of the Labour party:
	"Oh, and for goodness' sake, don't pursue a graduate tax. We should be proud of our brave and correct decision to introduce tuition fees. Students don't pay them, graduates do, when they're earning more than £15,000 a year, at very low rates, stopped from their pay just like a graduate tax, but with the money going where it belongs: to universities rather than the Treasury."
	Quite right. It was true then and it is true now.

Ben Gummer: Back in June, when the Leader of the Opposition was offering solutions, he said that instead of up-front fees, graduates under Labour's scheme would be asked to contribute a small percentage of their salaries to a fund over a fixed period of time. The percentage would vary according to income. I struggle to understand the difference between his proposal and that of Government Front Benchers.

David Willetts: My hon. Friend is right. We have improved on the policies that we inherited from the previous Government. They had a threshold of £15,000 and we are increasing that to £21,000, which is why the poorest quarter of graduates will be better off under our proposals than on the scheme we inherited.

Dan Byles: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the former Labour Education Minister, Lord Adonis, who said that trying to introduce a graduate tax would be so complex that it would be a "catastrophe"?

David Willetts: Absolutely right. Lord Browne produced an excellent report. There is a group, "Blairites for Browne", but of course they fell for that trick once before, so they are a bit wary this time.
	The House should recognise that our proposals improve on the inheritance from the Labour Government. We have not only raised the threshold but increased the maintenance support available to students. Indeed, 500,000 students will receive more grant than they currently do.

Pete Wishart: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way, but there are more than three parties in the House. Does he recognise that one party has consistently opposed tuition fees, is in government in Scotland and will have nothing whatsoever to do with tuition fees?

David Willetts: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain how, under the English system, more Scottish students study at English universities than English students study at Scottish universities. We know how to invest in high quality universities for the future, in the best interests of English students and the nation.
	We have increased the repayment threshold and the value of the maintenance grant and, of course, we have offered a far better deal for part-time students than is currently available to them. In future, part-time students will be eligible for fee loans, which they do not currently receive.

Geraint Davies: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I hope that it is genuine point of order.

Geraint Davies: I think that Members of all parties are worried that there may be civil unrest as a result of the way in which this is being railroaded-

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I call the Minister.

David Willetts: If I may say so, that was a disgraceful intervention.
	The Government are committed to explaining how our proposals are progressive, how they will improve social mobility and how they will give our universities secure financial backing for the future. Members on both sides of the House have asked about the speed with which we are implementing our proposals. In fact, that was the Opposition's main point-they want more time for a review and a Green Paper. I should explain to the House that the proposals emerge from Lord Browne's review, which was set up by the Labour Government more than a year ago. The inquiry took evidence in public and received evidence from Members of all parties. We believe that we are implementing proposals- [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. Whatever people's feelings, the Minister must be heard.

David Willetts: I was explaining how we have not rushed our proposals. They were based on a report that was introduced and commissioned by Labour a year ago. The changes will not come into force for the first generation of students until September 2012. It is necessary to take the financing decisions now so that universities can plan for them. If we do not take those decisions now, students and universities will find that universities have less grant, and that they are unable to replace it with income from students, which is what we are introducing-that is the key feature of our proposals.
	We often hear Opposition Members talk about the loss of teaching grant, but they do not talk about the other side of the proposal-the extra money that can come to universities through the choices of students. We trust students. Taxpayers will provide students with the money to pay the fees. That will ensure that universities can continue to enjoy the levels of income that they enjoy at the moment. That money will not be handed out from Whitehall; it will come from the choices of students.
	We believe that those students will continue to choose arts and humanities. There is no bias against arts and humanities- [ Interruption. ] Our proposals are equitable, and we believe that they will ensure that students can choose the courses that they wish.

Angela Smith: rose-

David Willetts: Because our proposals-[Hon. Members: "Give way!"] I am not going to give way because I have three minutes remaining in which to report to the House that in the past few days 53 university leaders from across England have made it clear that they support the coalition shift towards a more progressive graduate contribution scheme as the way to provide a more sustainable higher education system.
	Of course the Government care about participation in universities. That is why I can assure Members on both sides of the House that unlike the system we inherited from the previous Government, we expect universities to review access and report on how they are doing on broadening it under our proposals not every five years, but every year.
	There will be no loss of income for universities. We believe that students will continue to apply. They will not have to pay up-front, and they will be enabled by funds from the taxpayer to choose the university courses that they wish.
	We believe that the proposals are the right way forward for our universities. All the Opposition can offer is delay. They did not even dare propose their graduate tax today, because we know that although the leader of the Labour party wants it, his own shadow Chancellor does not agree. They have not even proposed a graduate tax.
	Labour left a mess in the public finances, and the Government must tackle it. If we do not tackle it in the way we propose, and if we go for the delay that the Opposition advocate, it will simply mean less funding for universities or more Government borrowing. Who pays the Government debt? It is the younger generation whom the Opposition claim to care about.
	That is why the Government commend the motions to the House. We believe that we have tackled the challenge-in a time of austerity-of proposing a policy that is fair and progressive, and one that puts power in the hands of students and universities on a solid financial footing for the future.

Question put.
	 The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 302.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved ,
	That, for the purpose of section 24 of the Higher Education Act 2004, the higher amount should be increased to £9,000, and to £4,500 in the cases described in regulation 5 of the draft regulations in Command Paper Cm 7986, and that the increase should take effect from 1 September 2012.
	 The Speaker then put the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Order, 8  December ).

Education

Motion made, and Question put,
	That the draft Higher Education (Basic Amount) (England) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 29 November, be approved.- (James Duddridge.)
	 The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 302.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Business without Debate

Business of the house

Ordered,
	That, in respect of the Loans to Ireland Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.- (Sir George Young.)

Sittings of the house

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Tuesday 21 December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he has notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.- (Sir George Young.)

PETITION
	 — 
	Bus Service (Walsall)

Valerie Vaz: rose-[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Lady presents her petition, as usual in these circumstances I appeal to hon. and right hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, affording the same courtesy to the hon. Lady that they would wish to be extended to themselves in her situation.

Valerie Vaz: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	The petition is from the users of bus service 639, Walsall to Wednesbury. The petitioners are concerned about the way the 639 bus has been taken out of service from the Kings Hill area, Walsall. They believe that this action was taken without consulting the people who live in the Kings Hill area. They have noted that the reason given was lack of use. The petitioners believe that this was not the case, and that it was due to the failings of West Midlands Travel (Walsall), as the bus often did not turn up and was mostly late when it did. They are concerned that there is now not a service to the Manor hospital. They therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to call on National Express West Midlands and Centro to take all possible steps to put this problem right and ensure that the 639 bus service is reinstated. There are 119 signatories.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of users of Bus Service 639, Walsall to Wednesbury,
	Declares that the Petitioners are concerned at the way the 639 bus has been taken out of service from the Kings Hill area; notes that the Petitioners believe that this action was taken without consultation of the people who live in the Kings Hill area; notes that the reason given was lack of use, but that the Petitioners believe this was not the case and that it was lack and incompetence of West Midlands Travel (Walsall), as the bus often did not turn up and was mostly late when it did; further notes that there is not now a service to the Manor Hospital.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to call on National Express West Midlands and Centro to take all possible steps to put this problem right and ensure that the 639 bus service is reinstated.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000870]

PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY (MENTALLY ILL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -( James Duddridge.)

Julian Lewis: I am delighted to have secured this debate. This is the second time I have addressed the House today and I hope that the consensus that was lacking in the earlier debate will be restored for this one, because hon. Members in all parties have the welfare of the mentally ill very much at heart. We are all constituency Members and we all have to deal with sad cases. Sometimes, we can do something to help people and sometimes it is too late to do anything to help those whom we have lost, but we can still try to achieve something in their memory to help other sufferers in future.
	By way of background, I want to make it clear that I have no expertise or practical qualifications in mental health and that my doctorate is not a medical degree. I do, however, have a certain amount of experience stemming from when I first set foot in the House, in 1997, and came second in the private Member's Bill ballot. The individual who came first in the ballot promoted a Bill to ban hunting and the Chamber was packed on that Friday. I am sorry to say that when we came to debate my private Member's Bill, which was on improving conditions for people who suffer catastrophic breakdowns and need in-patient treatment, the House was back to its normal sparse attendance. Nevertheless, despite that somewhat cockeyed sense of priorities, the issue of mental health is an enduring one that requires great sensitivity.
	Since those days, I have from time to time raised issues that affect my constituency. Most recently, I have been concerned about the closure of the psychiatric intensive care unit at Woodhaven hospital, which was constructed on the site of a former mental institution. I was delighted when that great facility was opened in my constituency a few years ago, and I worry about its future now that it has lost the intensive care unit. I recently set up a small group of people from different parts of the spectrum of mental health concern in the New Forest area. I asked members of that group, which is called "Support our Mental Health Services", to drop me a note about why they had joined it. One lady, Mary Stephenson, is particularly concerned about the loss of the PICU at Woodhaven, even though we are left with an acute ward. She wrote:
	"On any acute psychiatric ward, there should be an opportunity to remove very disturbed, noisy and possibly violent patients, to have private peace and 'cooling-off' facilities."
	That is also for the benefit of other people on the acute ward who do not require intensive psychiatric care. Unfortunately, that facility has now been lost.
	We are also concerned about the future of Crowlin House, which is a sort of halfway house. People have joined our group because they are concerned that if that residential facility were to close, those currently housed there might find themselves put into care homes for the elderly or for those with dementia. That would not be suitable for people who are, in a sense, halfway between being in-patients and being in the community.
	Other people have joined us from Solent Mind, which supplies various important services. It has drawn to my attention the fact that the community mental health team is coming under pressure, as it faces losing 20% of its budget because of the introduction of improving access to psychological therapies-IAPT. In itself, IAPT is a good idea, but it is fairly low level and not a specialist service. It was supposed to be in addition to the services available to my constituents. As I have said before in this House, the danger can be seen in what happened to the specialist student service in Southampton-I cite that example in view of today's earlier debate. That service is no more because its functions were supposedly moved in the direction of IAPT, but in fact IAPT was not able to take them up. In addition, one of the beneficiaries of a scheme called supported permitted work, David Hayward, has written to me expressing his worry that that is under threat, and I understand that there are concerns about the position of the vocational advice service-my constituent, Lorraine Miller, has written to me about that.
	I have painted a general picture about the state of mental health services, which is mixed. We have lost some good services, but we retain quite a lot of valuable assets, although we are worried that they might go. That is why we are setting up a campaign group to try to ensure their future.
	My specific concern tonight is the problem that arises when somebody is mentally ill and the people treating that person feel unable to share information about that person's treatment with their carers or their next of kin. For once, I can say that some excellent work has been done on the theory, but I am a little worried about the practice.
	I have with me a briefing paper prepared under the imprint of the Department of Health, King's college London, the Institute of Psychiatry at the Maudsley, Rethink and the NHS service delivery and organisation research and development programme. The paper goes right to the heart of the issue. It is entitled "Sharing mental health information with carers: pointers to good practice for service providers", and it seeks to tread a delicate line between preserving patient confidentiality and letting people who care about these patients have vital information about them when they are not in their right mind.

Esther McVey: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and beating me to it. I wish to raise the issues faced by a constituent who looked after her husband 24/7 until he passed away in 2006. He suffered from hallucinations, paranoia and depression. He also had falls, lost consciousness and regularly became violent towards her, all of which put a lot of pressure on their relationship and left her upset. Her health deteriorated and she felt that she could not look after him properly. It was not until he passed away that she learned that he had dementia. I have a question for the Minister: should the safety of the carer be put ahead of the patient's right to confidentiality? Should we consider the severity of the patient's mental health problem in determining whether they are fit to keep their condition a secret?

Julian Lewis: I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for staying after this somewhat trying and long day to make that important contribution, because it shows that I am not talking about some quirky, one-off situation. It is a very real dilemma, which requires great thoughtfulness and sensitivity.
	I do not have time to go into the contents of that briefing paper in great detail, but I shall select just a couple of quotations that show how good it is. It says:
	"Carers play an important role in many service users' lives. Their knowledge and expertise represent an enormous resource for statutory and voluntary mental health services. These are reasons why it is so important to include them through sharing information. Providing carers with information to support them in their role can improve outcomes for both service users and carers...Carers fear being denied access to important information to help them in their role. They are also concerned that their own confidences may be broken."
	I came to the topic through the case of Mr and Mrs Edgell-my constituents David and Kay-whose lovely daughter Larissa, aged 34, hanged herself in 2006. They have obviously done everything that they can to come to terms with that, but I have a detailed file, which I have shared, because I knew they would want me to, with the Department and the Minister. I shall not go into the detail, because I do not have the time to do so, but it shows that from the earliest stages, back in about 2000, they warned of their fears that Larissa, or Lara as she was known, was seriously at risk.
	Subsequently, in about 2004, Lara made a serious suicide attempt, but between then and 2006, when sadly-tragically-she succeeded, her parents were unable to know what was going on between her, the people who advised her in the NHS and, indeed, the people whom she saw privately, the private therapists.
	I made it clear to Mr and Mrs Edgell that I felt that little could be done to improve on the excellent briefing document that I have only briefly quoted. It is an admirable piece of work and-unlike so much jargon produced in-house and, dare I say it, within the NHS-admirably clear. It is a first-class piece of work, and I would not alter a dot or comma in it.
	When Mr and Mrs Edgell first came to see me in 2007, I wrote to the then Under-Secretary at the Department of Health-the hon. Member whose constituency I should have looked up. Is somebody going to tell me Ivan Lewis's constituency? I am not the only who is stumped. That is the first time I have known Mr Speaker's encyclopaedic memory to let him down. Sorry about that, Mr Speaker.
	Anyway, I wrote to the hon. Gentleman and said that my main reason for doing so was to focus on two main issues relating to what had happened- [ Interruption. ] A voice off tells me that he is the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis). I am glad that we have sorted that out.
	I said that I was writing on two main issues:
	"The first is the frequent invocation by doctors who were seeing Larissa of the concept of 'patient confidentiality' when her desperate parents were trying to look after her interests at a time when she was too unwell to be the best judge of them herself."
	I went on to say that, after Larissa took her own life, Mr and Mrs Edgell investigated that matter and discovered that the Department of Health had an extremely good policy, set out in the paper that I have described, which it issued in January 2006. The paper seemed to show, as I said in my letter,
	"a clear understanding of the importance of sharing vital information with those nearest to the mentally ill person",
	but, I pointed out,
	"the best policy in the world is worthless if the doctors concerned fail to apply it either out of ignorance or obstinacy."
	Mr and Mrs Edgell discovered only when it was too late how many times-it said how many in the notes of their daughter's various visits to medical professionals-she had had suicidal thoughts.
	The response from the hon. Member for Bury South was rather disappointing. I see that I did write the name of his constituency on the reply, so I apologise for having embarrassed Mr Speaker for no good purpose.
	In the reply, the then Minister states:
	"As you state in your letter, the Department of Health had issued excellent guidance regarding confidentiality and people with mental illnesses. However, as you may be aware, the Government's task is to set the national agenda, to put in place national standards and provide overall health service funding. The responsibility for deciding how the national agenda is delivered locally and determining how best to allocate these resources to meet the needs to their local populations rests with local health communities."
	I did not think that that was an adequate response. What is the point of producing excellent guidelines on highly sensitive, critically important, life and death matters, in that way and then relying on individual trusts to bestir themselves to the extent that they decide to apply or not to apply them? For once, it was the Conservative Opposition Member who was asking for a bit more central direction because, in this case, central direction was necessary.
	The second main concern of Mr and Mrs Edgell was the lack of regulation of the private therapists whom Larissa had been seeing. Larissa was 34 when she died, and was well and truly an adult. However, it is a matter of concern that, even after her death, the people treating her outside the NHS have refused to give up any notes or information about what they were doing during the period she was desperately in need of help. Again, the reply basically said that Mr and Mrs Edgell might wish to contact the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, which is a voluntary professional organisation that currently helps the psychotherapy and counselling profession to self-regulate. Frankly, that is no proper method of ensuring compliance when private therapists have been taking part in the treatment of someone who has ended their life under these circumstances.
	My time is pretty much exhausted, so I will confine myself to saying that I hope I have done justice to my constituents and to the memory of their daughter. They have not failed to understand the delicacy of the issues involved and they hope that their daughter's death will mean that, in the future, people recognise that the next of kin and/or the carer must be taken into confidence when people talk about doing away with themselves, even if those people are adults.
	Adults do not have quite the same rights when they are not operating within their normal mental framework. We talk about people being "out of their mind," which is perhaps an old way of saying something unpleasant about someone, but there is a literal truth in that phrase. I do not come from a Christian background, but I feel a particular sense of sadness when I hear people singing the famous hymn, "Dear Lord and Father of Mankind." The third line states:
	"Re-clothe us in our rightful mind".
	When people are not in their rightful mind, they need professional help. The professionals need to talk to each other and the mentally ill need the help of the people who have their interests most closely at heart. Those people are the next of kin and the carers. I would be most grateful if the Minister could give some reassurance for the future.

Paul Burstow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) on securing this debate. Having had the opportunity to deal with two Adjournment debates this week, I reflect on the fact that this was an entirely fitting and appropriate way to raise very serious matters, which was not entirely the case in the debate that I replied to yesterday.
	My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise these issues and to bring a distressing case to the House's attention. It is the most appalling human tragedy when a young person with so much to live for ends their own life. For the friends and family, the tragedy is all the greater when there is a sense that more could have been done to prevent the person from taking that action. I know that the parents of the young lady in this case continue to grieve for the desperate loss of their daughter. I can absolutely understand their need for answers and explanations, and for assurances from the relevant authorities that out of these tragic circumstances, some good may come. That is what I hope to be able to offer in my response.
	I am afraid that I have to start my remarks by saying that this case has some painful similarities to that raised in another debate to which I responded a couple of months ago. In both cases, the clear and consistent flaw was that families and carers were not properly listened to or involved. Indeed, evidence from the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide points to this being a flaw in too many cases. Where things go wrong in mental health services, it is so often due to communication breakdown between agencies and families. While there has been progress in mental health services in recent years, there is more to be done. In some parts of the country, the system is too secretive and defensive, and not sufficiently joined up to secure the best results for the patient.
	My hon. Friend will know that we set out in our coalition programme a commitment for hospitals to be open, and always to admit if something has gone wrong. That is why we plan to give effect to a duty of candour in which health professionals and managers would be expected to inform patients and families about actions which have resulted in harm. Mistakes happen-to err is to be human-but the key thing is that the NHS learns and improves practices so that the same errors are not repeated. I know that that is what the Edgell family are looking for. I expect all parts of the NHS to engage constructively with families like them to understand and learn from their concerns. That is also why we are determined to strengthen the arrangements for whistleblowing so that where standards slip or practice is poor, staff can raise their concerns in the knowledge that they will be treated seriously.
	Patient confidentiality emerges as a consistent theme in the correspondence that I have seen between the family and the local NHS; I am grateful to my hon. Friend for passing it to me. He recognises, I think, that the judgments that mental health professionals make are often finely poised. They can be damned if they do and damned if they don't. There is a balance to be struck between respecting the patient's wishes, on the one hand, while also acknowledging how friends and family can contribute significantly to the person's safety, ongoing treatment and recovery.
	All NHS organisations have clear legal and ethical obligations to ensure that patient information remains confidential. To resile from this principle, particularly in an areas as sensitive as one's mental health, would undermine the trust and confidence on which effective treatment is based, increasing the risk of the patient distrusting and disengaging from clinical care. It is very important to stress, however, that, as guidance provided by the Department of Health and the General Medical Council makes clear, patient confidentiality can and should be overridden to prevent significant harm either to themselves or to others. That very much goes to the point raised by the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) in her intervention.
	As my hon. Friend rightly said, patient confidentiality should not be a barrier to having conversations with families and carers. Those closest to the individual can play a crucial role in helping clinical teams to understand a patient's illness, and in providing an early warning if their condition changes or deteriorates. I am deeply concerned that not all trusts are applying this principle in practice. We need some basic common sense and compassion in how health professionals deal with concerned families. Having read the paperwork that my hon. Friend shared with me, I cannot help but feel a sense that some medical teams were ticking the boxes but missing the point.
	I cannot stand here at the Dispatch Box and enunciate lots of new principles. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is already very good practice guidance, as well as clear guidelines from the Department of Health, the GMC and others. However, what we need to do to achieve real change in practice is to ensure that it is clear where professional leadership comes from to drive the practice into everyday action on the ground. One of the actions that I will be taking as a result of this debate is to meet the relevant royal colleges to discuss how we can change and challenge attitudes within general practice-where this all began-and mental health services to ensure that the voice of families and carers is never ignored. Improving mental health is a clear priority for this Government.
	There is no health without mental health. Next year, as a result of our commitment to prioritise mental health, we will publish a new mental health strategy, which will set out how the Government will invest in early interventions and the extension of talking therapies, to which my hon. Friend referred, for children and older people. Those things are not all that we must do, but they will make an important contribution to tackling the burden of mental health at an earlier stage, thus promoting recovery and reducing the burden on individuals and society in the long run.
	In addition, we will publish a new suicide prevention strategy to set out the steps that the NHS and others need to take to further reduce suicide. I will ensure that the points that have been made in this debate are taken into account as we finalise that strategy.
	There is no adequate answer that I can give tonight to my hon. Friend's constituents to make up for their loss. However, I hope that my remarks and the fact that we have looked very carefully at what my hon. Friend said in his correspondence, assure him and his constituents that the Government are determined to do everything they can to ensure that the lessons from this case, and a number of other tragic cases, are translated into better practice in the future and that the good practice that is out there is not the exception, but the consistent norm.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.
	Correction
	 Official Report, 8 December 2010: In Division 148, column 478, Bob Blackman voted with the Ayes.